Senate Report 117-34 — Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Summary
Senate Report 117–34, ordered to be printed on August 4, 2021, is the Committee on Appropriations report, submitted by Ms. Baldwin, on S. 2599, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022. The bill as reported totals $203,085,781,000 in new obligational authority, compared with $205,769,113,000 in 2021 appropriations and a 2022 budget estimate of $214,812,272,000. The report opens with a table of contents running through Title I, Agricultural Programs. Only the opening pages of this long report were read.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
- Issuer
- Congressional materials
- Document type
- Crpt Crpt 117Srpt34 Crpt 117Srpt34
- Case
- Crpt Crpt 117Srpt34 Crpt 117Srpt34
Cite this document
“Senate Report 117-34 — Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies.”
Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/crpt-crpt-117srpt34-crpt-117srpt34/
, SHA-256 85b85bb0e29afc387e0d442f09046c5c2c7adf8cd4ffcfb0e163469a3c568b53.Full text
Calendar No. 113
117TH CONGRESS REPORT
" SENATE !
1st Session 117–34
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIA-
TIONS BILL, 2022
AUGUST 4, 2021—Ordered to be printed
Ms. BALDWIN, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 2599]
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2599) mak-
ing appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes, reports fa-
vorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
New obligational authority
Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $203,085,781,000
Amount of 2021 appropriations ............................... 205,769,113,000
Amount of 2022 budget estimate ............................ 214,812,272,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to—
2021 appropriations .......................................... ¥2,683,332,000
2022 budget estimate ........................................ ¥11,726,491,000
45–273 PDF
CONTENTS
Page
Overview and Summary of the Bill ........................................................................ 4
Reports to Congress ................................................................................................. 5
Breakdown by Title ................................................................................................. 5
Title I:
Agricultural Programs:
Production, Processing, and Marketing:
Office of the Secretary ....................................................................... 6
Executive Operations ......................................................................... 9
Office of the Chief Economist ............................................................ 9
Office of Hearings and Appeals ......................................................... 10
Office of Budget and Program Analysis ........................................... 11
Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................. 11
Office of the Chief Financial Officer ................................................. 12
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights ........................... 12
Office of Civil Rights .......................................................................... 13
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities ................................................ 13
Hazardous Materials Management .................................................. 14
Office of Safety, Security, and Protection ........................................ 14
Office of Inspector General ................................................................ 14
Office of the General Counsel ........................................................... 15
Office of Ethics ................................................................................... 15
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Eco-
nomics .............................................................................................. 15
Economic Research Service ............................................................... 16
National Agricultural Statistics Service .......................................... 17
Agricultural Research Service ........................................................... 18
National Institute of Food and Agriculture ..................................... 34
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Pro-
grams ............................................................................................... 47
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .................................. 47
Agricultural Marketing Service ........................................................ 56
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety ................................. 61
Food Safety and Inspection Service .................................................. 62
Title II:
Farm Production and Conservation Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conser-
vation ...................................................................................................... 64
Farm Production and Conservation Business Center ............................ 65
Farm Service Agency ................................................................................ 65
Risk Management Agency ........................................................................ 72
Natural Resources Conservation Service ................................................ 74
Corporations:
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund ............................................. 79
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund ...................................................... 79
Title III:
Rural Development Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development ........................... 82
Rural Housing Service .............................................................................. 83
Rural Community Facilities Program Account ....................................... 88
Rural Business—Cooperative Service ...................................................... 89
Rural Utilities Service .............................................................................. 95
Title IV:
Domestic Food Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer
Services ................................................................................................... 100
(2)
3
Page
Title IV—Continued
Domestic Food Programs—Continued
Food and Nutrition Service ...................................................................... 101
Title V:
Foreign Assistance and Related Programs:
Office of the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural
Affairs ..................................................................................................... 110
Foreign Agricultural Service .................................................................... 111
Title VI:
Related Agency and Food and Drug Administration:
Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Adminis-
tration ..................................................................................................... 115
Independent Agency: Farm Credit Administration ................................ 133
Title VII: General Provisions .................................................................................. 135
Program, Project, and Activity ............................................................................... 138
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate ................................................................................................................... 138
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate ................................................................................................................... 139
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate ................................................................................................................... 140
Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 143
Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items ...................................... 144
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 180
OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL
The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administra-
tion, and Related Agencies appropriations bill provides funding for
a wide array of Federal programs, mostly in the U.S. Department
of Agriculture [USDA]. These programs include agricultural re-
search, education, and extension activities; natural resources con-
servation programs; farm income and support programs; marketing
and inspection activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural
housing, economic and community development, and telecommuni-
cation and electrification assistance; and various export and inter-
national activities of the USDA.
The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug Administra-
tion [FDA] and allows the use of collected fees for administrative
expenses of the Farm Credit Administration [FCA].
The discretionary programs and activities of USDA and FDA
that are supported by this bill include high priority responsibilities
entrusted to the Federal Government and its partners to protect
human health and safety, contribute to economic recovery, and
achieve policy objectives strongly supported by the American peo-
ple. The ability to provide for these measures is made difficult by
growing pressure on available levels of discretionary spending as a
consequence of the overall public debate on Federal spending, reve-
nues, and size of the Federal debt.
Too often, the USDA programs funded by this bill are confused
with farm subsidies and other mandatory spending more properly
associated with multi-year farm bills. In contrast, this bill provides
annual funding for programs familiar to all Americans such as pro-
tecting food safety through the Food Safety and Inspection Service
[FSIS] and the FDA, which also plays a vital role in maintaining
the safety of the Nation’s blood supply and availability of safe and
effective medical products and other components of our health sys-
tem. This bill also provides funding to fight against the introduc-
tion and spread of noxious, infectious, or invasive pests and dis-
eases that threaten our plant and animal health environments, as
well as funding for many other missions of dire importance to the
American people.
In the context of overall pressures on spending and the com-
peting priorities that the Committee faces, this bill as reported pro-
vides the proper amount of emphasis on agricultural, rural develop-
ment, and other programs and activities funded by the bill. It is
consistent with the Subcommittee’s allocation for fiscal year 2022.
All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to ensure
that an appropriate level of funding is provided to carry out the
programs of USDA, FDA, and FCA. Details on each of the ac-
counts, the funding level, and the Committee’s justifications for the
funding levels are included in the report.
(4)
5
Fiscal year 2021 levels cited in this report reflect amounts en-
acted in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law
116–260) and do not include fiscal year 2021 supplemental appro-
priations. Accordingly, any comparisons to fiscal year 2021 do not
reflect fiscal year 2021 supplemental appropriations. Fiscal year
2021 supplemental appropriations are included in the comparative
statement of new budget authority at the end of this report under
the heading ‘‘Other Appropriations’’.
REPORTS TO CONGRESS
The Committee has, throughout this report, requested agencies
to provide studies and reports on various issues. The Committee
utilizes these reports to evaluate program performance and make
decisions on future appropriations. The Committee directs that all
studies and reports be provided to the Committee as electronic doc-
uments in an agreed upon format within 120 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, unless an alternative submission schedule
is specifically stated in the report.
BREAKDOWN BY TITLE
The amounts of obligational authority for each of the seven titles
are shown in the following table. A detailed tabulation, showing
comparisons, appears at the end of this report. Recommendations
for individual appropriation items, projects and activities are car-
ried in this report under the appropriate item headings.
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Committee
enacted recommendation
Title I: Agricultural programs ..................................................................................... 7,542,086 8,313,700
Title II: Farm Production and Conservation programs ............................................... 43,421,375 38,601,114
Title III: Rural economic and community development programs ............................. 3,236,023 3,562,431
Title IV: Domestic food programs ............................................................................... 145,738,332 139,612,899
Title V: Foreign assistance and related programs ..................................................... 2,204,020 2,246,956
Title VI: Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration ................................. 3,518,716 3,414,716
Title VII: General provisions ........................................................................................ 108,561 7,333,965
Other Appropriations ................................................................................................... .............................. ..............................
Total, new budget (obligational) authority ................................................... 205,769,113 202,486,980
TITLE I
AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
PROCESSING, RESEARCH, AND MARKETING
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $46,998,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 86,773,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 52,916,000
The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy Secretary,
Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Chief Information Of-
ficer, Chief Financial Officer, and members of their immediate
staffs, directs and coordinates the work of the United States De-
partment of Agriculture [USDA]. This includes developing policy,
maintaining relationships with agricultural organizations and oth-
ers in the development of farm programs, and maintaining liaison
with the Executive Office of the President and Members of Con-
gress on all matters pertaining to agricultural policy.
The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and control
the work of the Department is contained in the Organic Act (Public
Law 101–624). The delegation of regulatory functions to Depart-
ment employees and authorization of appropriations to carry out
these functions is contained in 7 U.S.C. 450c–450g.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $52,916,000 for
the Office of the Secretary.
The following table reflects the amount provided by the Com-
mittee for each office and activity:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Office of the Secretary ................................................................... 5,101 14,801 5,703
Office of Homeland Security .......................................................... 1,324 13,429 4,749
Office of Tribal Relations .............................................................. ............................ 2,860 1,025
Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement ............................ 7,002 13,294 6,044
Office of Assistant Secretary for Administration .......................... 881 1,399 1,649
Departmental Administration ......................................................... 21,440 26,001 21,782
Office of Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations and
Intergovernmental Affairs .......................................................... 3,908 4,480 4,480
Office of Communications ............................................................. 7,342 10,509 7,484
Total .................................................................................. 46,998 86,773 52,916
(6)
7
Canadian Wheat Grading.—The Committee is concerned about
unfair wheat grading practices that negatively affect American
wheat growers that export to Canada. Currently, the Canadian
wheat varietal registration system excludes many American vari-
eties, instead automatically downgrading America premium wheat
to the lowest quality designation. In the United States, however,
our grading system provides a fair examination for wheat imported
from Canada, regardless of the seed variety. This discrepancy
needs to be addressed to ensure our wheat growers are being treat-
ed fairly. Therefore, the Committee urges the Secretary of Agri-
culture to work with the Department of Commerce and the United
States Trade Representative to prioritize conversations with the
Canadian government to address trade inequities resulting from
Canada’s current wheat varietal registration practices.
Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] Obligations and Commit-
ments.—The Secretary is directed to notify the Committees on Ap-
propriations of the House and Senate in writing 15 days prior to
the obligation or commitment of any emergency funds from the
CCC.
Farming Opportunities and Training Outreach Program.—Cre-
ating and expanding new farming opportunities and supporting
farmer training and technical assistance are critical to the future
of American agriculture and our food system. The Committee notes
that significant funding was included in the fiscal year 2021 Omni-
bus and COVID Relief and Response Act for the Farming Opportu-
nities and Training Outreach Program [FOTO]. The Secretary is
urged to support new and established training, education, outreach,
and technical assistance initiatives that address the needs of the
next generation of farmers and ensure they have access to USDA
credit, commodity, conservation, and other programs and services.
Hemp.—The Committee is concerned that the level of allowable
THC content in hemp may be arbitrary and pose a burden on hemp
producers that is not supported by scientific evidence. The Com-
mittee directs USDA to work with the Department of Health and
Human Services and the Drug Enforcement Administration to
study and report to Congress on whether there is scientific basis
for the current limit of 3 percent THC in hemp and suggest alter-
native levels if necessary.
The Committee is concerned that producers of high value, horti-
cultural hemp are being prevented from accessing USDA programs
designed for specialty crops, including the Specialty Crop Block
Grants and crop insurance. Within 90 days of enactment of this
Act, the Committee directs the Secretary to establish a dual des-
ignation for hemp as a specialty crop based on the manner and
purpose for which it is grown.
Institute for Rural Partnerships.—The Committee recognizes
rural communities face unique challenges that include but are not
limited to, availability of safe and efficient transportation systems,
access to high speed telecommunications and broadband options,
implementing the latest advanced manufacturing technologies, de-
livering rural health solutions, providing safe drinking water sys-
tems, offering effective waste water treatment options, providing
affordable housing options, and developing resilient community in-
frastructure systems in the face of climate uncertainty. While costs
8
of addressing these issues continue to rise, available resources have
not kept pace. New partnerships and solutions are needed to tackle
these problems. Therefore, the Committee provides $30,000,000 for
the establishment of three Institutes for Rural Partnerships at es-
tablished land-grant universities. The institutes shall be geographi-
cally diverse in their placement, and shall dedicate resources to re-
searching the causes and conditions of challenges facing rural
areas, and to the development of community partnerships to ad-
dress such challenges and to promulgate creative solutions that can
be replicated in similar communities within the region.
One such institute shall be established at a land-grant university
in the Northeast U.S. in a rural State where over 60 percent of the
population is defined as rural by the U.S. Census Bureau, which
is connected to an associated medical school and medical center,
and which has enumerated existing partnerships with Federal
agencies that support existing initiatives to research rural agri-
culture, food systems, water quality, transit and employment
needs. Another shall be established at a comprehensive land-grant
university that includes a veterinary school of medicine, medical
school, and medical center with at least 10 satellite agricultural re-
search stations in rural communities in a State with a diverse
rural manufacturing base that also produces a diversity of agricul-
tural and forest products. The land-grant university shall have sig-
nificant, existing partnerships with Federal agencies related to food
production, food manufacturing, community engagement and envi-
ronmental stewardship. Finally, another institute shall be estab-
lished at a land-grant university in the southeast U.S. with estab-
lished programs in agriculture and engineering, and with specific
expertise in transportation systems and asphalt roadways in rural
areas, advanced manufacturing systems and additive manufac-
turing, innovative community-based solutions for rural housing,
wireless engineering and critical infrastructure security, and water
and wastewater treatment for rural communities.
Local Agriculture Market Program.—Creating and expanding
new and better markets is critical to the future of American agri-
culture and our food system. The Committee notes that substantial
funding was included in the fiscal year 2021 Omnibus and COVID
Relief and Response Act for both the Farmers Market and Local
Food Promotion Program [FMLFPP] and the Value-Added Producer
Grant Program [VAPG]. The Secretary is urged to continue to find
innovative was to help further diversify and increase on-farm in-
come to strengthen our rural communities.
National Finance Center.—USDA’s National Finance Center
[NFC] is the largest designated Federal Government Payroll
Shared Service Provider [SSP] that maintains and provides inte-
grated payroll and personnel services for over 640,000 Federal em-
ployees. To ensure that thousands of Federal employees’ pay and
human resources services are not interrupted or adversely im-
pacted, the Committee has maintained and modified the current
law general provision regarding the NFC payroll and shared serv-
ices operations, missions, functions, and reporting notifications.
The Committee also directs USDA to provide quarterly reports to
the Committee regarding full-time equivalent [FTE] levels for each
of the current NFC divisions, operations, or functions as well as
9
each of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer [OFCO] and Office
of the Chief Information Officer [OCIO] divisions, operations, or
functions currently co-located with the NFC. These quarterly re-
ports shall also include a detailed breakdown of the FTEs for each
of these same divisions, functions, or operations for the NFC and
the co-located OCFO and OCIO functions compared to those during
fiscal year 2018 (calendar year 2017).
Pay Costs and Federal Employees’ Retirement System [FERS].—
The Committee provides the requested pay cost increase of 2.7 per-
cent and provides the 1.1 percent increase for FERS benefits for
fiscal year 2022.
Resource Conservation and Development Councils.—Since 1964,
the Resource Conservation and Development [RC&D] Councils
have worked at the grassroots level with local leaders to plan, de-
velop, and carry out programs for land and water conservation and
management. The Committee encourages the Secretary to consider
the maximum practical use of RC&D Councils, where such RC&D
Councils meet agency performance requirements, in the delivery of
USDA programs and services.
Scholars Programs.—The Committee applauds the Department’s
efforts to strengthen the long-term partnership between USDA and
1890 and 1994 Land Grant Institutions to increase the number of
students studying, graduating, and pursuing careers in in food, ag-
riculture, natural resources, and other related fields of study.
Building a diverse and strong pipeline of future agricultural sci-
entists and professionals in public service can help to bring new
ideas and perspectives that will benefit agriculture and society as
a whole. The Committee encourages USDA to further expand the
work of the two Scholars Programs to allow for the selection of a
greater number of scholars and supports the participation of more
agencies in this effort in order to recruit talented students into
public service.
EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS
Executive operations were established as a result of the reorga-
nization of the Department to provide a support team for USDA
policy officials and selected Department-wide services. Activities
under the executive operations include the Office of the Chief Econ-
omist, the National Appeals Division, and the Office of Budget and
Program Analysis.
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ECONOMIST
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $24,192,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 31,050,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,499,000
The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of Agri-
culture on the economic implications of Department policies and
programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for the Na-
tion’s economic intelligence and analysis, risk assessment, and cost-
benefit analysis related to domestic and international food and ag-
riculture issues, provides policy direction for renewable energy de-
velopment; conducts analyses of climate change impacts on agri-
culture and forestry; and is responsible for coordination and review
10
of all commodity and aggregate agricultural and food-related data
used to develop outlook and situation material within the Depart-
ment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,499,000 for
the Office of the Chief Economist.
Policy Research.—The Committee provides $8,000,000 for policy
research under 7 U.S.C. 3155 for entities with existing institutional
capacity to conduct complex economic and policy analysis and
which have a lengthy and well-documented record of conducting
policy analysis for the benefit of USDA, the Congressional Budget
Office, or the Congress. Of the amount provided for policy research
activities, $3,000,000 is provided for the Department to focus ef-
forts on entities that have developed models, databases, and staff
necessary to conduct in-depth analysis of impacts of agriculture or
rural development policy proposals on rural communities, farmers,
agribusiness, taxpayers, and consumers. The Department is en-
couraged to fund regional and State-level baseline projections in
addition to currently available national and international outlooks.
Study of U.S. Biobased Economy.—The Committee recognizes the
global scope of the bioeconomy and its importance to our Nation’s
long-term economic strength and competitiveness, so directs the
Department to study the U.S. bioeconomy’s size and scope in com-
parison with other nations according to available data on direct/in-
direct jobs and average wages, economic output, tax contributions,
and investment. Additionally, the study should examine the bene-
fits per dollar of new and private investment in expanding plant-
based product production in rural America, including how invest-
ments in worker training programs, infrastructure, and public serv-
ices could positively impact local and State economies. Further, it
should address the opportunities and barriers to biofuels companies
expanding into advanced fuels, bioproducts or additional byproduct
or value-added production. In coordination with the Forest Service,
it should include an analysis of the potential economic integration
between forest products, pulp, and woody biomass and markets for
annual or perennial biomass. The Report should include an anal-
ysis of market transparency in the sales of these commodities and
its impact on farmers and forest managers who harvest feedstocks
to further production sites. The Committee directs the Secretary to
submit a report detailing the Department’s findings to the Congres-
sional Committees on Appropriations not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment.
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $15,394,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 16,173,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,173,000
The Office of Hearings and Appeals conducts administrative
hearings and reviews of adverse program decisions made by the
Rural Development mission area, the Farm Service Agency [FSA],
the Risk Management Agency [RMA], and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service [NRCS].
11
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,173,000 for
the Office of Hearings and Appeals.
OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $9,629,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 12,760,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,310,000
The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides direction
and administration of the Department’s budgetary functions includ-
ing developing, presenting, and executing of the budget; reviewing
program and legislative proposals for program, budget, and related
implications; analyzing program and resource issues and alter-
natives; preparing summaries of pertinent data to aid the Sec-
retary, Departmental policy officials, and agency program man-
agers in the decision-making process; and providing Department-
wide coordination for and participation in the presentation of budg-
et-related matters to the Committees of the Congress, the media,
and interested public. The Office also provides Department-wide co-
ordination of the preparation and processing of regulations and leg-
islative programs and reports.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,310,000 for
the Office of Budget and Program Analysis.
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $66,814,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 101,001,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 84,746,000
The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established in the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–106), which required
the establishment of a Chief Information Officer for major Federal
agencies. This Office provides policy guidance, leadership, coordina-
tion, and direction to the Department’s information management
and information technology [IT] investment activities in support of
USDA program delivery, and is the lead office in USDA e-gov ef-
forts. The Office provides long-range planning guidance, imple-
ments measures to ensure that technology investments are eco-
nomical and effective, coordinates interagency information re-
sources management projects, and implements standards to pro-
mote information exchange and technical interoperability. In addi-
tion, the Office of the Chief Information Officer is responsible for
certain activities financed under the Department’s Working Capital
Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235). The Office also provides telecommunication
and automated data processing [ADP] services to USDA agencies
through the National Information Technology Center with locations
in Fort Collins, Colorado; Kansas City, Missouri; and Washington,
D.C. Direct ADP operational services are also provided to the Office
of the Secretary, the Office of the General Counsel, the Office of
Communications, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and De-
partmental Management.
12
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $84,746,000 for
the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $6,109,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 7,118,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,118,000
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is responsible for the
dual roles of Chief Financial Management Policy Officer and Chief
Financial Management Advisor to the Secretary and mission area
heads. The Office provides leadership for all financial management,
accounting, travel, Federal assistance, and strategic planning per-
formance measurement activities within the Department. The Of-
fice is also responsible for the management and operation of the
National Finance Center and the Departmental Working Capital
Fund.
National Finance Center.—The National Finance Center [NFC] is
the largest designated Federal Government Payroll Shared Service
Provider and it provides integrated payroll and personnel services
for over 640,000 Federal employees. To ensure that thousands of
Federal employees’ pay and human resources services are not in-
terrupted or adversely impacted by major organizational changes,
the Committee has modified requirements under current law relat-
ing to NFC payroll and shared services operations, missions, per-
sonnel, and functions. The Committee also directs the USDA to
provide quarterly reports on full-time equivalent [FTE] levels for
each of the current NFC divisions, operations, and functions, as
well as each of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer [OCFO] and
Office of the Chief Information Officer [OCIO] divisions, operations,
and functions currently co-located with the NFC. The reports also
are to include a detailed breakdown of the FTEs for each and any
of these same divisions, functions, or operations for the NFC and
the co-located OCFO and OCIO functions compared to those during
fiscal years 2017 and 2018. Furthermore, the Committee is pleased
that the National Finance Center was able to protect its cybersecu-
rity infrastructure in the wake of the SolarWinds breach. The Com-
mittee encourages the National Finance Center to keep it apprised
of its cybersecurity needs and to immediately notify the Committee
of any major threat to its systems.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,118,000 for
the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $908,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 1,426,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,426,000
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights provides
oversight of civil rights and related functions. This includes coordi-
nation of the administration of civil rights laws and regulations for
13
employees of USDA and participants in programs of the Depart-
ment and ensuring compliance with civil rights laws.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,426,000 for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.
OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $22,789,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 29,328,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 29,328,000
The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership responsi-
bility for all Department-wide civil rights activities. These activi-
ties include employment opportunity, as well as program non-
discrimination policy development, analysis, coordination, and com-
pliance. The Office is responsible for providing leadership in facili-
tating the fair and equitable treatment of USDA employees and for
monitoring program activities to ensure that all USDA programs
are delivered in a nondiscriminatory manner. The Office’s outreach
functions provide leadership, coordination, facilitation, and exper-
tise to internal and external partners to ensure equal and timely
access to USDA programs for all constituents, with emphasis on
the underserved, through information sharing, technical assistance,
and training.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $29,328,000 for
the Office of Civil Rights.
AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $108,124,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 133,443,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 313,443,000
Department headquarters presently operates in a two-building,
Government-owned complex in downtown Washington, D.C.; the
George Washington Carver Center in Beltsville, Maryland; and
leased buildings in the metropolitan Washington, D.C., area. Under
an arrangement with the General Services Administration, USDA
operates, maintains, and repairs these facilities, in lieu of rental
payments. For the last several years, the Department has imple-
mented a strategic space plan to locate staff more efficiently, ren-
ovate its buildings, and eliminate safety hazards, particularly in
the Agriculture South Building.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $313,443,000 for
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities.
14
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $6,514,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 6,545,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,545,000
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act (Public Law 96–510) and the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (Public Law 94–580), the Department
has the responsibility to meet the same standards regarding the
storage and disposition of hazardous materials as private busi-
nesses. The Department is required to contain, cleanup, monitor,
and inspect for hazardous materials in areas under the Depart-
ment’s jurisdiction.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,545,000 for
Hazardous Materials Management.
OFFICE OF SAFETY, SECURITY, AND PROTECTION
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $23,218,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 27,034,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 23,306,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,306,000 for
the Office of Safety, Security, and Protection.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $99,912,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 106,309,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 106,309,000
The Office of Inspector General [OIG] was established on October
12, 1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law 95–
452). This Act expanded and provided specific authorities for the
activities of OIG which had previously been carried out under the
general authorities of the Secretary.
The Office is administered by an inspector general who reports
directly to the Secretary. Functions and responsibilities of this Of-
fice include direction and control of audit and investigative activi-
ties within the Department, formulation of audit and investigative
policies and procedures regarding Department programs and oper-
ations, and analysis and coordination of program-related audit and
investigation activities performed by other Department agencies.
The activities of this Office are designed to assure compliance
with existing laws, policies, regulations, and programs of the De-
partment’s agencies and to provide appropriate officials with the
means for prompt corrective action where deviations have occurred.
The scope of audit and investigative activities is large and includes
administrative, program, and criminal matters. These activities are
coordinated, when appropriate, with various audit and investiga-
tive agencies of the executive and legislative branches of the Gov-
ernment.
15
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $106,309,000 for
the Office of Inspector General.
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $45,390,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 60,723,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 60,723,000
The Office of the General Counsel provides all legal advice, coun-
sel, and services to the Secretary and to all agencies, offices, and
corporations of the Department. The Office represents the Depart-
ment in administrative proceedings; non-litigation debt collection
proceedings; State water rights adjudications; proceedings before
the Environmental Protection Agency, Interstate Commerce Com-
mission, Federal Maritime Administration, and International Trade
Commission; and, in conjunction with the Department of Justice,
judicial proceedings and litigation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $60,723,000 for
the Office of the General Counsel.
OFFICE OF ETHICS
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $4,184,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 4,277,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,277,000
The Office of Ethics is the centralized and consolidated office im-
plementing USDA’s ethics program throughout the Department.
The Office provides ethics services to all employees at the Depart-
ment concerning advice, training, and guidance about compliance
with conflict of interest and impartiality rules. This includes com-
plying with the requirements of the Stop Trading on Congressional
Knowledge Act (Public Law 112–105) and the Office of Government
Ethics regulatory requirements (5 CFR parts 2634 through 2641).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,277,000 for
the Office of Ethics.
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND
ECONOMICS
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $809,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 1,327,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,327,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and
Economics provides direction and coordination in carrying out the
laws enacted by the Congress for food and agricultural research,
education, extension, and economic and statistical information. The
Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Agri-
cultural Research Service [ARS]; National Institute of Food and
Agriculture [NIFA]; Economic Research Service [ERS]; and Na-
tional Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS].
16
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,327,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Eco-
nomics.
ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $85,476,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 90,594,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 90,794,000
The Economic Research Service provides economic and other so-
cial science research and analysis for public and private decisions
on agriculture, food, the environment, and rural America. The in-
formation that ERS produces is available to the general public and
helps the Executive and Legislative Branches develop, administer,
and evaluate agricultural and rural policies and programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $90,794,000 for
the Economic Research Service.
Agricultural Commodity Trade.—The Committee recognizes the
economic importance of international trade for U.S. agricultural
commodities and believes that producers and markets would ben-
efit from having access to additional data on the country of destina-
tion or origin of those commodities. Therefore, the Committee di-
rects ERS to report on a quarterly basis the top five agricultural
commodity exports and imports by State and to identify the coun-
try of destination or origin of those commodities.
Feed Costs.—The Committee maintains funding provided in fiscal
year 2021 for ERS to expand its current feed cost components sur-
veys nationally.
Incentives for Voluntary Carbon Sequestration.—The Committee
directs ERS to provide, within 1 year of the enactment of this Act,
a report on incentive programs for encouraging the voluntary adop-
tion various agricultural management practices that increase car-
bon sequestration in soil. ERS is encouraged to consider how alter-
native policies or voluntary programs would manage the tradeoff
between incentivizing new adopters and rewarding and sustaining
existing adopters of techniques that sequester soil carbon, regional
and geographic differences in incentive programs, social and behav-
ioral obstacles, and the differences across program designs.
Life Cycle Analysis [LCA] for Various Biobased Products.—The
Committee recognizes the need for consumers and industry to have
better information regarding the environmental benefits and im-
pact of biobased products when compared with traditional products
in the marketplace. This can be accomplished through a study de-
tailing the most recent life cycle analyses of the main biobased
products across the specific product areas of chemicals, plastics,
and fibrous materials. The Committee therefore directs the Depart-
ment to complete a study of existing life cycle analyses for key
biobased chemicals, polymers, plastics, and fibrous materials and
environmental impact data across various categories, and to make
its findings publicly available for consumers and industry to access.
The Secretary shall submit a report detailing the Department’s
17
findings to the Committee not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment and provide an in-person briefing.
Organic Data Analysis.—The organic industry has grown at a
tremendous rate over the past several years and accurate data for
the production, pricing, and marketing of organic products is essen-
tial. Therefore, the Committee encourages ERS to continue and ex-
pand the efforts relating to organic data analysis.
Rural Tract Codes.—The Committee recognizes the Federal Of-
fice of Rural Health Policy’s [FORHP] use of Rural-Urban Com-
muting Area [RUCA] and the Frontier and Remote [FAR] codes,
developed by ERS to define rural populations. However, neither of
these codes are designed to measure the rural nature of commu-
nities in mountainous regions, such as the Appalachian Mountains.
The Committee is pleased that ERS has taken some steps to make
corrections to secondary RUCA codes to better reflect census tracts
that should be classified as rural. The Committee directs ERS to
continue to coordinate with FORHP to conduct research on the fea-
sibility of identifying tracts with difficult and mountainous terrain.
Roads shall be deemed to be located in mountainous terrain if such
roads are in areas identified as mountains on any official maps or
other documents prepared for and issued to the public by the State
agency responsible for highways or by the U.S. Geological Survey.
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $183,921,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 193,662,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 191,662,000
The National Agricultural Statistics Service administers the De-
partment’s program of collecting and publishing current national,
State, and county agricultural statistics. These statistics provide
accurate and timely projections of current agricultural production
and measures of the economic and environmental welfare of the ag-
ricultural sector, which are essential for making effective policy,
production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes statis-
tical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in support of
their missions and provides consulting, technical assistance, and
training to developing countries.
NASS is also responsible for administration of the Census of Ag-
riculture, which is taken every 5 years and provides comprehensive
data on the agricultural economy, including: data on the number
of farms, land use, production expenses, farm product values, value
of land and buildings, farm size and characteristics of farm opera-
tors, market value of agricultural production sold, acreage of major
crops, inventory of livestock and poultry, and farm irrigation prac-
tices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $191,662,000 for
the National Agricultural Statistics Service, of which $46,850,000
is for the Census of Agriculture.
Barley Estimates.—The Committee is encouraged that NASS has
reinstated acreage and production estimates for barley in States
that were previously discontinued in 2016 and 2017. The Com-
18
mittee expects NASS to continue providing barley acreage and pro-
duction estimates for those States.
Chemical Use Data Series.—The Chemical Use Data Series pro-
vides timely, valuable information on fertilizer and chemical use
data on major field crops and selected specialty crops. The Com-
mittee encourages NASS to continue funding the collection and
analysis of chemical use data, as well as practices such as inte-
grated pest management. The Committee supports the NASS effort
to resume collecting Fruit Chemical Use data and Vegetable Chem-
ical Use data in alternating years and directs the continuation of
this practice to ensure equal access to Federal statistics.
Cost of Pollination Survey.—The Committee provides $1,500,000
for NASS to resume the Cost of Pollination survey, which provides
critical information to beekeepers and specialty crop growers.
Floriculture Crops Report.—The Committee recognizes the impor-
tance of the Floriculture Crops Report and maintains funding for
NASS to complete the report. In compiling the report, the Com-
mittee continues to direct NASS to include data from Alaska.
Organic Data Initiative.—The Committee maintains the $500,000
in funding provided in fiscal year 2021 for NASS to coordinate with
Agricultural Marketing Service for activities related to expanding
organic price reporting and organic data collection.
Report Improvements.—The Committee is aware of concerns re-
garding recent NASS reports. The Committee provides funding for
NASS to provide a customer-centric data collection dashboard for
ease of use, improving the data-user experience with simplified ac-
cess and increased usability, creating a reimagined operating model
that equips the agency with the best tools and technology and al-
lows the agency to recruit and retain top talent, and other initia-
tives that will allow NASS to meet future data needs. The Com-
mittee directs NASS to provide a report not later than 120 days
after the enactment of this Act on how the agency can improve re-
port accuracy, including through new technology, updated methods,
and better coordination with other USDA agencies and the private
sector.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $1,491,784,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 1,849,590,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,675,040,000
The Agricultural Research Service [ARS] is responsible for con-
ducting basic, applied, and developmental research through its
major program areas of New Products/Product Quality/Value
Added; Livestock/Crop Production; Food Safety; Livestock/Crop Pro-
tection; Human Nutrition; and Environmental Stewardship. The
research applies to a wide range of goals, including commodities,
natural resources, fields of science, and geographic, climatic, and
environmental conditions.
ARS is also responsible for the Abraham Lincoln National Agri-
cultural Library, which provides agricultural information and li-
brary services through traditional library functions and modern
19
electronic dissemination to USDA agencies, public and private or-
ganizations, and individuals.
As USDA’s in-house agricultural research unit, ARS has major
responsibilities for conducting and leading the national agricultural
research effort. It provides initiative and leadership in the fol-
lowing five areas: research on broad regional and national prob-
lems, research to support Federal action and regulatory agencies,
expertise to meet national emergencies, research support for inter-
national programs, and scientific resources to the executive branch
and Congress.
The mission of ARS research is to develop and transfer solutions
to agricultural problems of high national priority and to provide in-
formation access and dissemination to ensure high-quality, safe
food and other agricultural products; assess the nutritional needs
of Americans; sustain a competitive agricultural economy; enhance
the natural resource base and the environment; and provide eco-
nomic opportunities for rural citizens, communities, and society as
a whole.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,675,040,000
for salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research Service.
The Committee expects extramural research to be funded at no
less than the fiscal year 2021 levels.
Advancing the Efficiency of Forage-based Beef Production.—The
Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2021 level for the
National Soil Dynamics Laboratory to conduct research and devel-
opment of economically and environmentally sustainable forage-
based beef production systems to increase the volume and effi-
ciency of forage-based beef production.
Agricultural Genomics.—The Committee provides no less than
the fiscal year 2021 level for agricultural genomic research to ex-
pand the knowledge of public and private sector entities and per-
sons concerning genomes for species of importance to the food and
agriculture sectors in order to maximize the return on the invest-
ment in genomics of agriculturally important species.
Agrivoltaics.—The Committee recognizes the advancement in
agrivoltaics and its potential in renewable energy and water effi-
ciency. The Committee encourages the Department to conduct a
study on dual-use renewable energy systems that includes an as-
sessment of the compatibility of different species of livestock and
different crop types with different dual-use renewable energy sys-
tem designs as well as a risk-benefit analysis of dual-use renewable
energy systems in different regions. The Committee further encour-
ages USDA to conduct a demonstration program on dual-use re-
newable energy systems in multiple regions of the United States,
including arid, semi-arid, and wet agricultural zones.
AgTech Cooperative Agreements.—The Committee provides
$1,000,000 to establish cooperative agreements with land grant
universities, non-profits and other entities to support the research,
development and acceleration of agriculture technology
Alfalfa Research.—The Committee notes that research into al-
falfa seed and alfalfa forage systems holds the potential to increase
yields, increase milk production, and improve genetics, and the
20
Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2021 level to sup-
port research focused on alfalfa improvement. Research should
focus on using tools to accelerate and enhance existing breeding
programs focused on improving yield and quality parameters; de-
veloping innovative harvesting and utilization systems; developing
new markets for co-products; and quantifying environmental bene-
fits from alfalfa-based systems.
Alternative Technologies for Animal Waste Utilization.—The
Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2021 level for the
National Soil Dynamics Laboratory to conduct research and devel-
opment of technologies to recover phosphorus from manure, trans-
form manure into secondary byproducts, and find alternative envi-
ronmentally safe and economical usages of manure. The research
may also explore environmentally safe methods and appropriate
rates of manure application for growing crops and vegetables and
the development of alternative feedstock for livestock by raising
aquatic zooplanktons on manure wastewater.
Ancient Crop Genetics.—The Committee recognizes the impor-
tance of plant genetics research in enhancing yields and reducing
global food insecurity. The Committee provides an additional
$1,000,000 for utilizing ancient crop plant ancestors to meet con-
sumer demands and protect the global food supply.
Animal Health and Agro-/Bio-Defense Program.—The Committee
provides an additional of $1,500,000 to ensure the development of
human and technical resources needed for the establishment of a
center of excellence for Animal Health and Agro-Bio Defense
science to advance integrated research for defending against bio-
and agro-terrorism in economically important, large domestic ani-
mals. The Committee recognizes the need for developing programs
and facilities to conduct research that supports the mission of the
National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility and other Federal pro-
grams in the animal agro-defense strategy.
Appalachian Natural Products Research.—The Committee pro-
vides $1,000,000 to advance natural products research and applica-
tions with a focus on plant species in Appalachia.
Aquaculture Seedstock.—The Committee remains concerned that
vital seedstock to support the development of aquaculture in Fed-
eral waters of the Gulf of Mexico will be sourced from foreign aqua-
culture producers. Domestic on-land recirculating aquaculture sys-
tems are highly capable of producing seedstock to support signifi-
cant domestic on-land and offshore aquaculture industry growth,
including through broodstock acquisition and care, spawning, and
larval culture techniques. Therefore, the Committee encourages
USDA to continue working collaboratively with U.S. aquaculture
producers and research institutions that specialize in the develop-
ment of aquaculture technologies and provides an additional
$1,000,000 for the development of aquaculture technology that will
ensure a steady supply of warm water marine fish seedstock for
the economic growth of the U.S. aquaculture industry.
Aquaponics System Development.—The Committee recognizes the
need for improving the development of fresh food production tech-
nology to address domestic food security and safety demands. The
Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2021 level and di-
rects ARS to coordinate with academic partners and industry to de-
21
velop a model-controlled agriculture aquaponics system that is scal-
able and commercially viable with the purpose of advancing in-
creased fresh food production, improved food safety, decreased
water usage, improved nutrient utilization, and decreased negative
environmental impacts.
Atlantic Salmon Breeding Program.—The Committee directs
ARS to continue its Atlantic salmon breeding and domestication
work. The Committee notes that domestic salmon farms are re-
quired to only use strains of salmon that are of North American or-
igin and that these strains need substantial breeding improvement
in order to be competitive with strains currently used by foreign
producers. The Committee notes that the current ARS Atlantic
salmon breeding program lacks a geneticist and supports efforts by
the Department to address this need.
Binational Agricultural Research and Development [BARD].—
The Committee is supportive of the activities carried out through
BARD and provides an increase of $1,000,000 to support BARD’s
historical grant-making functions and expand BARD programming
for food and nutrition as well as artificial intelligence.
Barley Pest Initiative.—The Committee recognizes that insects
and viral, bacterial, and fungal diseases inflict substantial yield
and quality losses to the barley crop throughout the United States,
resulting in significant economic losses to growers and end-users.
The Committee supports research to be carried out through the
Barley Pest Initiative to address these major threats to sustainable
and profitable barley production and utilization. The Committee
provides an additional $1,000,000 to support this initiative.
Bee Genomic Sequencing.—The Committee is aware that the ge-
nome of the honeybee, Apis mellifera, has been sequenced, but
there are more than 4,000 bee species in the United States, not all
of which are affected by colony collapse or population declines in
the same way. The Committee recognizes the critical importance of
bee species to American agriculture, floriculture, and ecosystem
biodiversity and the increasing challenges to bee colony health re-
lated to parasites, poor nutrition, pathogens, and pesticides. Al-
though progress has been made in understanding these influences
on pollinator health, additional research into a broader range of ge-
netic information will assist in addressing the decline in bee polli-
nators. The Committee provides an additional $1,500,000 for ARS
to sequence and study the genomes of all species of bees in the
United States and directs that this research be conducted in con-
junction with Midwestern land-grant universities with established
expertise in bee genomic biology.
Big Data.—The Committee is aware of ARS’ effort to develop
high performance computing infrastructures for modern agricul-
tural research. The Committee provides $15,000,000 to expand
ARS’ high-speed network, high-performance computing capabilities,
big data storage, and modern informatics expertise to meet both
current and future needs
Blueberry Breeding.—The Committee provides no less than the
fiscal year 2021 level to continue a comprehensive national blue-
berry breeding research program to support research in the areas
of physiology, horticulture, plant pathology, entomology, and fruit
quality that complement breeding. The research will apply the lat-
22
est tools in molecular breeding to blueberry improvement as well
as developing cultivars suitable for machine harvesting.
Cattle Fever Ticks.—Cattle fever ticks pose a significant health
threat to U.S. cattle and other species across the entire Southern
region of the United States. The Committee provides no less than
the fiscal year 2021 level for research to address the spread of cat-
tle fever ticks.
Center for Pollinator Health.—The Committee is aware that bees
play a crucial role in U.S. agriculture as pollinators and that con-
tinued colony loss poses a serious threat to future food production.
While the Committee commends the Department for the steps it
has taken to better understand and address this problem, the Com-
mittee is concerned that the maximum benefits of multiagency ef-
forts have yet to be achieved. The Committee provides no less than
the fiscal year 2021 level for the Center for Pollinator Health in
order to provide a central Federal voice on pollinator health. The
Committee encourages ARS to collaborate with Federal and land-
grant university partners to examine the impact of pesticides,
varroa mites, and other potential contributors to bee colony de-
clines.
Chronic Wasting Disease [CWD].—The Committee recognizes the
importance of a live test for cervids potentially affected with CWD
and provides an additional $500,000 for research dedicated to the
development of such test and research on pathways of trans-
mission.
Citrus Greening Disease Research.—The Committee commends
ARS on its research efforts on citrus greening disease and encour-
ages the agency to continue working to develop methods to reduce
transmission and enhance immunity in citrus trees, and to work
with industry, universities, growers, and other partners to develop
effective control mechanisms. The Committee also encourages ARS
to coordinate its efforts with the Huanglongbing Multi-Agency Co-
ordination [HLB–MAC] group.
Climate Change.—The Committee understands the important
role ARS has on addressing climate change issues. The Committee
provides $5,000,000 to establish ARS research teams to support re-
gional Climate Hubs and $2,500,000 to develop methods to reduce
and mitigate the impacts of climate change on pests and pathogen
infestations of livestock, poultry, and aquaculture.
Climate Hubs.—The Committee provides $5,000,000 for ARS to
establish a fellowship program that actively supports climate hub
research and communications.
Coffee Leaf Rust.—The recent discovery of coffee leaf rust in the
U.S. insular pacific has substantially impacted U.S. coffee agri-
culture, and the Committee provides $1,200,000 to develop science-
based management strategies, provide extension services, and re-
search CLR resistant varieties of coffee.
Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia.—The Committee continues
to support USDA’s many efforts to address the threat of foreign
animal diseases and pests to prevent their introduction and spread
in the U.S. ARS participates in these efforts by conducting research
to develop improved animal diagnostic tests and vaccines, and the
Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2021 level for re-
23
search with partners on contagious bovine pleuropneumonia, which
can have a mortality rate as high as 80 percent for infected cattle.
Cotton Blue Disease.—The Committee is aware that emerging
Cotton Blue Disease identified in Southeastern States could have
a devastating impact on the cotton industry if it continues to
spread. The Committee provides an additional $1,500,000 and di-
rects ARS to coordinate with the Animal and Plant Health Inspec-
tion Service [APHIS], academic partners, and industry to develop
a multi-State sentinel program with the purpose of conducting re-
search to establish biomarkers for the disease and to determine
whether there are viable extension management strategies per-
taining to aphid control and general cotton management.
Cotton Ginning.—The Committee recognizes the importance of
pollution abatement, improving fiber quality, ginning efficiency,
cotton seed, and other byproducts and provides no less than the fis-
cal year 2021 level to expand research in cotton ginning and inno-
vation by existing laboratories.
Cotton Seed Bug.—The Cotton Seed Bug has been identified in
certain areas of the west. The Cotton Seed Bug has been reported
to cause reduction in yield, reduction in seed weight, and reduction
in oil content of seed. The Committee provides $1,000,000 to re-
search further the effects of this bug.
Cover Crops and Cereal Grain Variety Selection.—The Committee
provides an additional $2,000,000 to develop soil enhancement
technologies and research cereal grains, cover crops, and invasive
weeds as they related to the northern climates in regions domi-
nated by permafrost.
Cover Crops Research and Outreach.—The Committee recognizes
the importance of developing profitable and practicable cover crop
options for use in dairy, grain, and vegetable production systems,
including for use in no-till organic systems and as forages. There-
fore, the Committee provides an additional $4,050,000 to support
research with the purposes of improving measures of soil health
and resiliency; varietal development; optimal dairy forage species
combinations; timing and strategies for cover crop seeding and ter-
mination; forage integration into organic dairy systems; and miti-
gation of environmental and extreme rainfall impacts on water
quality and soil security for diverse cover crop systems.
Cranberry Research.—The Committee recognizes the need for ad-
vancements in water conservation, pest control, disease reduction,
and fruit quality improvements in cranberry production. The Com-
mittee provides an additional $2,000,000 for the improvement of
cranberry yields, pest and disease management, and water re-
source management by developing fields devoted to cranberry re-
search and collection and storage of samples for analysis in appro-
priate existing laboratory facilities.
Crop Production Systems and Crop Genetics.—The Committee
recommends an additional $1,000,000 to support ARS activities in
crop production systems and crop genetics in the mid-south region.
Dairy Forage Research.—The Committee provides $3,200,000 for
research and outreach on the attributes of alternative cropping cy-
cles and forage systems for dairy production systems, including
evaluation of the interactions between climate change, water qual-
ity, soil carbon, and cost-of-production in the short and long term.
24
Dietary Manipulation to Improve Gut Health in Broiler Produc-
tion.—The Committee recognizes the need for the development of
alternative nutritional and managerial strategies in domestic poul-
try production as a result of broiler-fed antibiotic growth pro-
moters. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2021
level to support cooperative research focused on ensuring broiler
production remains nutritional and competitive in the global mar-
ketplace.
East Coast Shellfish Breeding.—The Committee recognizes the
dangers of parasites and bacterial and viral diseases to shellfish
farmers and understands the importance of selective breeding to
combat these infections. The Committee provides an additional
$1,500,000 for shellfish breeding research focused on the East
Coast.
Emerging Cereal Rust Diseases.—The Committee is aware that
emerging cereal rust diseases are a threat to domestic and world
food supplies. Therefore, the Department should continue to dedi-
cate funding to accelerate efforts to combat cereal rust disease, in-
cluding development of Ug99-resistant wheat varieties.
Feed Enhancement.—The Committee recognizes the potential
benefits of using Bromoform, currently produced by Asparagopsis
taxiformis (red seaweed), as a cattle feed enhancement to reduce
pollution. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2021
level for the Livestock Nutrient Management Research Unit to ex-
amine the applicability and potential benefits of Bromoform,
whether produced by Asparagopsis taxiformis or an alternative
method, as a cattle feed enhancement.
Floriculture and Nursery Research.—The Committee recognizes
the economic importance of the floriculture and nursery sector of
agriculture and the industry’s need for continued innovation. The
Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2021 funding level
for ARS to support academic and Federal researchers to pursue ef-
forts in crop protection, breeding, mechanization, and other areas
through USDA’s Floriculture and Nursery Research Initiative.
Food Systems.—The Committee provides no less than the fiscal
year 2021 level for ARS to continue a Food Systems Center that
addresses how local, regional, and global food systems can provide
nutritious and culturally appropriate food, regardless of individual
life circumstances. Of the amount provided, $1,000,00 is to con-
tinue a pilot program to provide for an evaluation of improved food
resource management and diet quality in populations not now
served, including the elderly, households living below 185 percent
of the poverty level, and low-income households with children of
any age.
Foodborne Pathogens.—Salmonella continues to cause serious
disease in food animals and, via transmission through contami-
nated food products to people, remains the number one bacterial
foodborne pathogen in humans. The Committee provides no less
than the fiscal year 2021 level to develop non-antibiotic interven-
tions to inhibit environmental movement of Salmonella between
food animal species and to reduce the pathogen load in food ani-
mals themselves through the use of Salmonella-targeted viruses
called bacteriophages, as well as prebiotic and probiotic supple-
ments.
25
Forest Products.—The Committee recognizes the important role
of the forests products sector to the U.S. economy. The need to cre-
ate new and improved value-added products and renewable energy
from our Nation’s wood supply is critical to the sustainability of the
national economy. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal
year 2021 level to support research on wood product quality im-
provement and improvement in forest products evaluation stand-
ards and valuation techniques. ARS shall conduct this research in
consultation with the Forest Products Laboratory.
Genetic Oat Research.—The Committee recognizes the potential
genetic oat research has to improve disease resistance (especially
rusts and viruses), augment genetics, increase yields, and develop
crop rotation systems that include oats, which will enhance the
value of oats and provide benefits to producers and consumers. The
Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 to expand existing
research focused on oat improvement.
Genetic Resistance.—The Committee provides $500,000 for ARS
research that focuses on discovering and developing genetic resist-
ance and other management technologies for insect pests and dis-
eases of wheat, peanut, sorghum, and barley.
Genomes to Fields.—The Committee provides no less than the fis-
cal year 2021 level to support the Germplasm Enhancement of
Maize project to complement existing USDA maize germplasm pro-
grams and to support the emerging large-scale public sector effort
to investigate the interaction of maize genome variation and envi-
ronments, known as the Genomes to Fields project.
Healthy Soils Initiative.—The Committee provides an additional
$1,000,000 to support the study of enhanced food nutritional qual-
ity through Healthy Soil-Healthy Food-Healthy People Initiatives.
Hemp Cultivar Development.—The Committee encourages ARS to
conduct biotechnology and genomics research in collaboration with
capable institutions to elucidate the genetic control of key produc-
tion and product quality traits in hemp to facilitate cultivar devel-
opment. In addition, the Committee provides $2,500,000 for ARS to
partner with institutions already engaged in such research to con-
duct hemp genetic improvement research and breeding with new
breeding and editing techniques.
Hemp Germplasm.—The Committee recognizes the increasing de-
mand for hemp for a variety of uses and its growing importance as
a crop for U.S. farmers. When the Nation’s hemp germplasm was
destroyed in the 1980s, researchers lost access to publicly available
germplasm for plant breeding purposes. The Committee directs
ARS to establish and maintain a hemp germplasm repository at
the Plant Genetics Resources Research Unit and provides no less
than the fiscal year 2021 level for this purpose. The Committee
also encourages ARS and the Plant Genetics Resources Research
Unit to partner with 1890 institutions that have existing institu-
tional capacity on hemp germplasm research, education, and exten-
sion capabilities.
Hemp Production Systems.—The Committee recognizes the
emerging market potential for U.S. hemp and hemp-based products
for a variety of uses. The Committee directs ARS to conduct region-
ally-driven research, development, and stakeholder engagement to
improve agronomic and agro-economic understanding of effectively
26
integrating hemp into existing agricultural cropping, processing,
and marketing systems. The Committee provides no less than the
fiscal year 2021 level for this purpose. Research, engagement, and
technology transfer shall be conducted in strict accordance with all
applicable Federal and State authorities and regulations.
Herbicide Resistance Initiative.—The Committee supports the
creation of a regionally focused Herbicide Resistance Initiative for
the Pacific Northwest to identify and overcome herbicide resistance
associated with the crop production pathway, reducing production
losses and reducing or eliminating pressure on trade limits due to
contamination. The Committee supports research to address weed
management strongly affecting the long-term economic sustain-
ability of food systems in collaboration with ARS, research institu-
tions and stakeholder support. The Committee recommendation in-
cludes $3,000,000 to support the initiative.
High Performance Computing Support.—The Committee provides
an additional $3,000,000 to support high performance computing
capability to address scientific needs and directs ARS to collaborate
with appropriate partners with the technical capacity and scientific
synergy to provide cost-effective high performance computing sup-
port.
Hops Research.—The Committee provides no less than the fiscal
year 2021 level to support hops research.
Human Nutrition Research.—Maintenance of health throughout
the lifespan, along with prevention of obesity and chronic diseases
via food-based recommendations, are the major emphases of human
nutrition research. This research supports USDA’s strategic goals
of nutrition monitoring; the scientific basis for dietary rec-
ommendations; prevention of obesity and related diseases; and life
stage nutrition and metabolism, in order to better define the role
of nutrition in pregnancy and growth of children and for healthier
aging. The Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 to expand
research regarding life stage nutrition and metabolism and the
growth, health promotion, disease prevention, diet, and immune
function of the developing child, especially the rural child. The
Committee also provides an increase of $1,000,000 to address the
vital role that research has on human nutrition and an aging popu-
lation.
Impact of Harmful Algal Bloom [HAB] on Aquaculture.—The
Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2021 level for the
support of cooperative projects working on the toxicology of HABs,
including the algal species involved, the factors mediating toxin
production or release, better detection methods, development of
methods to predict release of toxins, and new biological or chemical
approaches to manage harmful algal blooms in a cost-effective
manner.
Improving Water Quality, Soil Health and Soil Carbon Seques-
tration in Poultry Agricultural Fields.—The Committee provides
$2,000,000 for the National Soil Dynamics Laboratory to conduct
research on developing biomass conversion technologies to engineer
biochar for nutrient capture and heavy metals absorption, as well
as examine the role of biochar in retaining nutrients and heavy
metals in soils and develop best management practices to apply
27
biochar and poultry manure to improve soil health and maximize
plant nutrient uptake.
Invasive Pests.—The Committee continues to be concerned about
the threats invasive pests pose to the Pacific region, notably to ag-
riculture, the economy, environment, human health, and national
security. The Committee directs ARS to continue its work with
stakeholders in the Pacific region to assess options for combatting
invasive pests. Options may include invasive pest biocontrol re-
search and development facilities, including appropriate contain-
ment, rearing facilities, greenhouse quarantine, and additional ag-
ricultural research laboratory space and administrative space.
Laboratory Staffing.—The Committee directs ARS to fully staff
laboratories even if the laboratory is proposed to be closed in the
budget request.
Little Cherry Disease.—The Committee is concerned by the grow-
ing prevalence of Little Cherry Disease in the Pacific Northwest
and the significant threat that it poses to the region’s stone fruit.
The Committee includes $2,500,000 for research on detection and
mitigation of the disease and the vector insects involved.
Livestock Genetic Research.—The Committee is aware of the
promise that genetic engineering holds for addressing livestock ani-
mal diseases, welfare, and production. However, the inability to
consistently produce genetically engineered ‘‘founder animals’’ in
significant numbers represents the major bottleneck for many
promising animal biotechnologies. While the National Institutes of
Health [NIH] have invested in such facilities for human biomedical
research activities that produced needed mice, rats, and pigs, the
USDA has not supported similar scale efforts. As such, the Com-
mittee provides an additional $3,000,000 to partner with a major
university where genetic engineering expertise is already available
and to contract for such services for swine models. The Committee
encourages USDA to leverage existing investments in this area
made by the NIH.
Macadamia Tree Health Initiative.—The Macadamia Tree Health
Initiative was authorized for the purpose of developing and dis-
seminating science-based tools and treatments to combat the maca-
damia felted coccid. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal
year 2021 level for this purpose.
Methyl Bromide Alternatives.—Farmers throughout the country
continue to face significant adverse economic and operational im-
pacts associated with the phase-out of methyl bromide. Therefore,
to meet ongoing needs for collaborative information sources on
state-of-the-art fumigant alternatives for use by researchers, grow-
ers, food processors, legislators, government policy officials, and
other interested parties, the Committee directs the Secretary to
provide continued funding for education and outreach regarding
methyl bromide alternatives to minimize the impacts of soil and
post-harvest pests to agriculture and maintain critical domestic
and international markets.
Missouri River Basin Water Resource Management Research.—
The Committee provides an additional $1,000,000 for research on
the benefits of improving flood control on the lower Missouri River,
assessing the impact on commodity process of river navigability,
evaluating the probabilities of levee failure and associated damage
28
under different protection scenarios, and utilizing biophysical sim-
ulation models to evaluate agricultural production and minimize
erosion and pollution runoff while supporting flood control, naviga-
tion, and drinking and cooling water supplies.
National Agricultural Library [NAL].—The Committee strongly
encourages ARS to maintain its focus on agriculture-related legal
issues within the NAL. The Committee notes that as the agri-
culture sector faces increasing financial stress, there is a necessity
that agriculture-related legal issues be addressed on an increas-
ingly frequent basis. Further, agricultural-related legal issues are
increasingly complex and the impact of these legal issues continues
to broaden in scope. The Committee provides an increase of
$4,000,000 to support climate science research at the NAL. Fur-
ther, the Committee provides funding at the fiscal year 2021 level
to the Agricultural Law Information Partnership, including for the
existing partner institutions, and recommends that the National
Agricultural Library continue to play an important role in assisting
all stakeholders with understanding these complex legal issues.
The Committee encourages ARS and the National Agricultural Li-
brary to engage in multi-year cooperative agreements with the Ag-
ricultural Law Information Partnership’s partner institutions.
National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility.—The Committee pro-
vides an additional $49,000,000to continue stand-up activities and
other initial costs to operate and maintain the National Bio- and
Agro-Defense Facility [NBAF].
Pacific Shellfish Genetics and Breeding.—The Committee recog-
nizes the economic importance of shellfish aquaculture for rural
and coastal communities on the Pacific coast and the need for resil-
ient, healthy genetic stocks that can withstand the region’s chang-
ing ocean and coastal conditions as well as new disease threats.
The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2021 level for
a shellfish genetics and breeding program to develop genetically
improved stock, promote enhanced disease resiliency, modernize
production technologies, and transfer technology and improved
stocks to shellfish farmers in Pacific States.
Pay Costs/FERS.—The Committee provides $17,806,000 for pay
costs and FERS increases.
Pear Genetics and Genomics.—The Committee recognizes that re-
search into pear genetics and genomics is needed to identify genetic
sources of pest resistance and to contribute to improved, size-con-
trolling rootstocks to enhance orchard efficiency and to otherwise
improve cultivated pear research. The Committee provides no less
than the fiscal year 2021 level to support research into pear genet-
ics and genomics.
Pollinator Recovery, Education, and Research.—The Committee
is aware that bees play a crucial role in U.S. agriculture as polli-
nators and that colony loss poses a serious threat to future food
production. The Committee provides an additional $1,000,000 to
continue work at the Pollinator Recovery, Education, and Research
Center.
Postharvest Dairy Research.—The Committee recognizes the im-
portance of developing solutions to address agricultural postharvest
inefficiencies to conserve limited resources and feed a growing pop-
ulation. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2021
29
level for research to develop postharvest technologies that decrease
waste and improve resource use of protein, fat, and sugar in dairy
processing.
Potato Research.—The Committee provides no less than the fiscal
year 2021 level for the development of new management strategies
for potato storage that will maintain potato quality, reduce grower
and processor losses, and increase profits.
Poultry Production Technology Development.—The Committee
recognizes the need for advancement in poultry processing as a re-
sult of increased global competition. The Committee provides no
less than the fiscal year 2021 level to support cooperative research
focused on advancing domestic poultry production and processing
through the development of a technology-driven, multidisciplinary
approach that will increase innovation and discovery, particularly
around animal welfare, food safety, labor, and environmental pro-
tection.
Poultry Research.—The Committee recognizes the important role
of the poultry sector to the U.S. economy. The Committee provides
no less than the fiscal year 2021 level to expand the research ca-
pacity for poultry production and health.
Precision Aquaculture.—The Committee recognizes that land-
based, closed-containment aquaculture provides the capacity to
raise freshwater or marine species in any locale with minimal envi-
ronmental impacts. Implementing precision agriculture tech-
nologies in these systems will increase production efficiencies and
profitability, ultimately increasing capacity for meeting the seafood
demands of U.S. consumers through responsible and sustainable
domestic aquaculture production. The Committee provides an addi-
tional $1,000,000 to continue the implementation of precision aqua-
culture in land-based, closed-containment aquaculture systems.
Precision Viticulture for Premium Grapes.—The Committee rec-
ognizes the rapid growth in demand for premium wine and the in-
dustry’s concurrent benefits with respect to helping numerous rural
communities generate new tourism and tax revenue. Relevant
stakeholders have identified precision viticulture and decision sup-
port systems as the preferred path to improving grape productivity
and quality. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year
2021 level for a collaborative research program focused on precision
viticulture for premium grapes and wine and to support existing
ARS viticulture and enology research programs.
Predictive Modeling Tools.—The Committee supports efforts to
develop sustainable agricultural production systems for crops
through the use of forecasting tools that incorporate post-harvest
soil testing and in-season monitoring of plant pathogens to combat
crop diseases. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year
2021 level for ARS to work with Federal and land-grant university
partners in order to develop predictive modeling tools that aid farm
management decisions to improve agricultural production of row
crops.
Pulse Crop Quality.—The Committee recognizes the importance
of ARS wheat quality laboratories in researching and advancing
the quality and overall utilization of wheat and pulse crops. The
Committee provides an additional $1,000,000 to further these ef-
forts for pulse crops by establishing quality analysis standards, de-
30
veloping innovative production processes, and evaluating crop vari-
eties for product functionality and market suitability.
Pulse Health Initiative.—The Committee supports the expansion
of pulse crop research and provides an additional $1,000,000 to en-
hance scientific research into the health and nutritional benefits of
dry peas, lentils, chickpeas, and dry beans.
Rangeland Precision Livestock Management.—The Committee
recognizes the opportunity for precision livestock management
strategies and tools to promote economically efficient and environ-
mentally responsive livestock production systems for the Western
rangeland. The Committee no less than the fiscal year 2021 level
to develop precision nutrition strategies for rangeland-based live-
stock as well as technology-based rangeland and livestock manage-
ment strategies to optimize the health and productivity of both
Western rangeland-based livestock and the rangeland ecosystem.
Further, the Committee recommends this funding to transfer new
knowledge and technology strategies into data-informed tools and
decision guidance for Western livestock and rangeland managers.
Rangeland Research.—The Committee recognizes the dem-
onstrated potential for cooperative partnerships to address complex
sagebrush steppe ecosystem challenges in the Great Basin region.
The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2021 level for
ARS to support a regional, multi-institutional cooperative partner-
ship to advance collaborative science-based conservation research,
extension, and education to address time-sensitive and shared
rangeland challenges affecting sustainable agricultural produc-
tivity, rural communities, and ecosystem health.
Reduce Mixed Infections in Warm Water Aquaculture.—The Com-
mittee provides $2,000,000 to conduct research to close the gaps in
knowledge regarding co-infections in catfish in order to help de-
velop effective prevention.
Research Facilities.—The Committee understands the important
collaboration between ARS and universities and the impact that
aging facilities have on new research opportunities. The Committee
directs ARS to submit a report that including information on the
current utilization of ARS facilities by universities and cooperators,
as well as the extent to which ARS is housed in cooperator facili-
ties.
Resilient Dryland Farming.—The Committee recognizes the need
for advancements in dryland production practices, cropping, and
equipment to increase profitability, conserve the soil, enhance soil
water storage, promote soil health, and decrease reliance on herbi-
cides. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2021
level to expand research focused on resilient dryland farming. Re-
search should focus on improving yield and quality parameters; de-
veloping cropping systems capable of tolerating drought, heat, and
diseases; and quantifying economic and environmental benefits
from dryland crop production systems.
Roseau Cane.—The Committee remains concerned with the
invasive species scale insect pest that is destroying Roseau cane in
the Mississippi River’s Delta region along the Gulf of Mexico. An
estimated 225,000 acres of wetlands in the Delta have been af-
fected with the die-off, and Roseau cane is important in maintain-
ing a healthy marsh and preventing erosion. The Committee di-
31
rects ARS to continue to work with APHIS and stakeholders to de-
velop an integrated management program for control of the Roseau
cane scale insect pest infestation.
Sclerotinia.—The Committee is aware of the economic impor-
tance of controlling sclerotinia, which affects sunflowers, soybeans,
canola, edible beans, peas, and lentils and provides no less than the
fiscal year 2021 level for this purpose. The Committee encourages
ARS to continue both core research and cooperative projects of the
National Sclerotinia Initiative.
Shrimp Production Research.—The Committee recognizes the im-
portance of increasing domestic shrimp production and provides no
less than the fiscal year 2021 level for research and commercial de-
velopment of production technologies that will improve shrimp
health and streamline feed management regimes.
Small Farm Orchard Production Current Research Information
System [CRIS] Unit.—The Committee recognizes the critical need
for development of low-cost technology and innovative production
strategies for small farm fruit growers that enables profitable oper-
ations on a variety of lands, including reclaimed mines, increases
overall fruit quality, reduces production costs, and increases eco-
nomic and ecological sustainability. The Committee provides no
less than the fiscal year 2021 level for the purpose of implementing
a Small Farm Orchard Production CRIS Unit.
Small Farms Research.—The Committee recognizes that many
small farms struggle to integrate agricultural technologies and that
ARS research has been pivotal in filling these gaps. The Committee
encourages ARS to grow research initiatives and projects that sup-
port the development, application, assessment, and technology
transfer of agricultural technologies to small farms.
Small Fruits.—The Committee recognizes the need to support re-
search to promote sustainable and organic production of berry and
grape crops with the goal of reducing pesticide use and improving
quality and yield. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal
year 2021 level to support research to improve the ability to fore-
cast pest and disease spread, implement precision management
strategies, and improve the overall quality of fruit.
Small Grains Genomic Initiative.—The Committee supports re-
search on barley and wheat high throughput genomics and
phenotyping and recognizes its importance in improving crop traits
and developing new cultivars. The Committee provides no less than
the fiscal year 2021 level to support the Small Grains Genomic Ini-
tiative.
Smoke Exposure.—The Committee is concerned about the im-
pacts of wildfire smoke on winegrape producers and supports re-
search to help growers and processors establish science-based
threshold levels of smoke compounds that cause smoke-tainted
grapes, identify the compounds responsible for smoke taints, de-
velop mitigation methods to reduce or eliminate smoke taint, and
conduct research into compounds that can act as a barrier between
the grapes and the smoke compounds. The Committee provides an
increase of $1,500,000 for this research.
Soft White Wheat Falling Numbers Test.—The Committee recog-
nizes the emerging crisis surrounding wheat starch degradation as
detected by the Hagberg-Perten Falling Numbers [FN] Test. The
32
quality loss was particularly devastating to Pacific Northwest soft
white wheat producers in late 2016. The Committee provides no
less than the fiscal year 2021 funding level to research the accu-
racy of the FN test and better understand environmental, storage,
and genetic conditions leading to this quality loss.
Soil Carbon Research.—The Committee recognizes the need for
research into current and future dryland production practices to in-
crease profitability, conserve soil, enhance soil water storage, pro-
mote sequestration of carbon and soil health, and reduce reliance
on herbicides. The Committee no less than the fiscal year 2021
level for research focused on improving yield; assessing the level of
carbon sequestration through existing practices; developing new
cropping systems capable of tolerating drought, heat, and diseases
by improving soil health; improving sequestration of carbon; and
identifying opportunities for increasing sustainability of dryland
crop production.
Sorghum Genetic Database.—The Committee recognizes the im-
portance of phenotyping and genotyping that allows breeders to un-
derstand which genes are responsible for improvements in pest re-
sistance, drought tolerance, and yield. The Committee provides an
additional $1,000,000 to further facilitate the partnership between
ARS and the Department of Energy on sorghum genome mapping,
particularly the creation of an easily-accessible database to house
the information generated from the ongoing genetic sequencing re-
search which will facilitate further crop development efforts, espe-
cially in combating the sugarcane aphid, a new and devastating
invasive pest.
Southern Regional Research Center [SRRC].—The Committee
provides an additional $1,000,000 for the SRRC crop adaptive resil-
ience food program to conduct collaborative research with research
universities by exploring the value-added enhancement of State-
grown crops such as rice and other grains and pulses, to define the
role for novel approaches in crop biological signaling and modifica-
tion to yield environmentally sustainable, adaptive and stressor re-
sistant varieties and interventions.
Staff Increases at ARS Facilities.—The Committee notes that
new ARS buildings have been completed over the past several
years and additional staffing is required to fully utilize this space.
The Committee provides $10,000,000 for additional staff at these
facilities.
Sudden Oak Death.—The European strain 1 [EU1] and the
North American strain 1 [NA1] of the sudden oak death pathogen
are major threats to western Douglas-fir/tanoak forests, resulting
in quarantine restrictions that threaten U.S. forests and export
markets for log shipments and lily bulbs. The Committee provides
no less than the fiscal year 2021 level for research to improve un-
derstanding of the EU1 and NA1 strains of the sudden oak death
pathogen and treatment methods to inform control and manage-
ment techniques in wildlands.
Sugar Beet Research.—The Committee provides an additional
$1,000,000 for plant disease research to improve the quality of
sugar beet production.
Sugarcane Variety Development.—The Committee recognizes the
devastating impact wrought by invasive pests on the domestic sug-
33
arcane industry and provides an additional $1,000,000 to support
the development of new pest and disease-resistant varieties.
Sustainable Aquaculture.—The Committee notes that aqua-
culture is the fastest growing food production industry in the
world. The Committee provides an additional $1,000,000 for a pilot
Aquaculture Experiment Station in partnership with universities to
support rapid response research on sustainable aquaculture for
coldwater and warmwater production environments, with special
emphasis on workforce education.
Sustainable and Advanced Technology Systems for Poultry Proc-
essing.—The Committee recognizes the need to address two chal-
lenges confronting the poultry industry: animal welfare and waste
management. As such, the Committee provides $4,000,000 and di-
rects the ARS to coordinate with academic partners to develop
technology-driven systems that will study humane poultry stun-
ning practices which are effective, feasible, and commercially via-
ble, as well as research the impacts of food safety chemicals on
wastewater systems and develop feasible methods for water re-use,
conservation, and recycling through algae-, microbial-based sys-
tems.
Sustainable Water Use Research.—The alluvial plain within the
Lower Mississippi River Basin is one of most productive agricul-
tural regions in the United States. The Committee remains con-
cerned with the unsustainable use of water in the Alluvial Aquifer
as a result of increasing water withdrawals and stagnant re-
charging. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2021
level for research to improve the recharge capabilities of the Allu-
vial Aquifer and to develop new conservation and irrigation tech-
niques to reduce water usage in agriculture production.
Tree Fruit Post-Harvest Research.—The Committee recognizes
that tree fruit production, including pear and cherry, is a predomi-
nant supplier for domestic and international markets. The Com-
mittee further recognizes that the tree fruit industry faces signifi-
cant economic vulnerability from variations in post-harvest quality
control. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2021
level for pear and cherry tree fruit research to optimize yield and
post-harvest quality, extend storage life, and promote enhanced re-
siliency from endemic and emerging diseases.
Tropical and Subtropical Research.—Research on Tropical and
Subtropical crops is critical as the presence of and destruction by
invasive pests such as fruit flies, coffee berry borer, felted maca-
damia nut coccid, plant viruses, and fungal diseases increasingly
threaten crop security in the Pacific and Insular Areas. The Com-
mittee encourages ARS to support this research.
Tropical Grazing Land Pest Management.—The recent introduc-
tion of invasive insect species such as Prosapia bicincta has sub-
stantially impacted tropical grazing lands. The Committee provides
$1,000,000 to develop science-based pest management strategies.
Unmanned Aerial Systems [UAS] Precision Agriculture Applica-
tions.—The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2021
level to support efforts utilizing UAS in crop production operations
and to address the challenges associated with data capture, trans-
fer, and analysis.
34
U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative [USWBSI].—The Com-
mittee recognizes that fusarium head blight is a major threat to ag-
riculture, inflicting substantial yield and quality losses throughout
the United States. The Committee supports research carried out
through the USWBSI. The Committee provides no less than the fis-
cal year 2021 level to conduct further research on reducing the im-
pact of fusarium head blight on wheat and barley.
Warmwater Aquaculture.—The Committee provides no less than
the fiscal year 2021 level to facilitate the advancement of tech-
nologies that improve the efficiency, profitability, and sustain-
ability of warmwater aquaculture production.
Wheat and Sorghum Research.—The Committee recognizes the
potential impact heat and drought can have on the yield and qual-
ity of wheat and sorghum and the need for new cultivars to adapt
to changing climatic conditions. In addition, sorghum crops have
been hit particularly hard by the invasive sugarcane aphid and
new resistant cultivars are needed. The Committee provides no less
than the fiscal year 2021 level for research to improve the produc-
tivity and quality of wheat and sorghum during uncertain growing
seasons resulting from extended droughts and increased tempera-
tures. Within this increase, funding is included to initiate gene flow
research to advance the durability and sustainability of fitness
traits in sorghum.
Whitefly.—The Committee remains concerned with the whitefly,
Bemisia tabaci, epidemic, which is severely impacting pecan pro-
duction in the Southeastern United States. The Committee pro-
vides no less than the fiscal year 2021 level to continue this re-
search.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $35,700,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 45,405,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 45,405,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $45,405,000 for
Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
Section 7511(f)(2) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (Public Law 110–234) amends the Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6971) by establishing an
agency to be known as the National Institute of Food and Agri-
culture. The Secretary transferred to the Director of NIFA, effec-
tive October 1, 2009, all authorities administered by the Adminis-
trator of the Cooperative State, Research, Education, and Exten-
sion Service. The mission is to work with university partners and
customers to advance research, extension, and higher education in
the food and agricultural sciences and related environmental and
human sciences to benefit people, communities, and the Nation.
35
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $992,642,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 1,378,416,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,057,420,000
Research and Education programs administered by NIFA are
USDA’s principal entrée to the U.S. university system for the pur-
pose of conducting agricultural research and education programs as
authorized by the Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a–
361i); the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act of 1962, as
amended (Public Law 87–788); the Competitive, Special, and Facili-
ties Research Grant Act, as amended (Public Law 89–106); the Na-
tional Agricultural, Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act
of 1977, as amended (Public Law 95–113); the Equity in Edu-
cational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note); the Ag-
ricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998
(Public Law 105–185), as amended; the Food, Agriculture, Con-
servation and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–624); the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–171);
and the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law
110–246). Through these authorities, USDA participates with
States and other cooperators to encourage and assist State institu-
tions in conducting agricultural research and education through
the State Agricultural Experiment Stations of the 50 States and
the territories; approved Schools of Forestry; the 1890 Land-Grant
Institutions, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia State Univer-
sity; 1994 Land-Grant Institutions; Colleges of Veterinary Medi-
cine; and other eligible institutions. The appropriated funds provide
Federal support for research and education programs at these insti-
tutions.
The research and education programs participate in a nationwide
system of agricultural research program planning and coordination
among the State institutions, USDA, and the agricultural industry
of America.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,057,420,000
for research and education activities of the National Institute of
Food and Agriculture.
The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommenda-
tions for research and education activities:
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE—RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
[Dollars in thousands]
Committee
Program/Activity Authorization recommendation
Hatch Act ............................................................................................ 7 U.S.C. 361a–i .............................. 275,000
McIntire–Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act ......................................... 16 U.S.C. 582a through a–7 .......... 40,000
Research at 1890 Institutions (Evans-Allen Program) ...................... 7 U.S.C. 3222 .................................. 73,000
Payments to the 1994 Institutions ..................................................... 7 U.S.C. 301 note ........................... 6,000
Education Grants for 1890 Institutions .............................................. 7 U.S.C. 3152(b) ............................. 26,000
Scholarships at 1890 Institutions ...................................................... 7 U.S.C. 3222a ................................ 10,000
Centers of Excellence at 1890s Institutions ...................................... 7 U.S.C. 5926(d) ............................. 10,000
Education Grants for Hispanic–Serving Institutions .......................... 7 U.S.C. 3241 .................................. 14,000
Education Grants for Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving 7 U.S.C. 3156 .................................. 5,000
Institutions.
36
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE—RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—
Continued
[Dollars in thousands]
Committee
Program/Activity Authorization recommendation
Research Grants for 1994 Institutions ............................................... 7 U.S.C. 3222b–2, 3362 and 3363 5,000
New Beginning for Tribal Students .................................................... 7 U.S.C. 3222e ................................ 5,000
Capacity Building for Non Land-Grant Colleges of Agriculture ......... 7 U.S.C. 3319i ................................. 5,000
Resident Instruction and Distance Education Grants for Insular 7 U.S.C. 3362 and 3363 ................. 2,000
Areas.
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative ........................................... 7 U.S.C. 450i(b) .............................. 445,000
Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment ................................................. 7 U.S.C. 3151a ................................ 10,000
Veterinary Services Grant Program ..................................................... 7 U.S.C. 3151b ................................ 3,500
Continuing Animal Health and Disease Research Program ............... 7 U.S.C. 3195 .................................. 4,000
Supplemental and Alternative Crops .................................................. 7 U.S.C. 3319d ................................ 2,000
Multicultural Scholars, Graduate Fellowship and Institutions Chal- 7 U.S.C. 3152(b) ............................. 10,000
lenge Grants.
Secondary and 2-year Post-Secondary Education .............................. 7 U.S.C. 3152(j) .............................. 1,000
Aquaculture Centers ............................................................................ 7 U.S.C. 3322 .................................. 5,000
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education .............................. 7 U.S.C. 5811, 5812, 5831, and 45,000
5832.
Farm Business Management .............................................................. 7 U.S.C. 5925f ................................ 2,000
Sun Grant Program ............................................................................. 7 U.S.C. 8114 .................................. 3,500
Research Equipment Grants ............................................................... 7 U.S.C. 3310 .................................. 3,000
Minor Crop Pest Management (IR–4) ................................................. 7 U.S.C. 450i(e) .............................. 14,500
Alfalfa Seed and Alfalfa Forage Systems Research Program ............ 7 U.S.C. 5925 .................................. 3,500
Agricultural Genome to Phenome Initiative ........................................ 7 U.S.C. 5924 .................................. 2,000
Laying Hen and Turkey Research Program ......................................... 7 U.S.C. 5925 .................................. 1,000
Special Research Grants:
Global Change/UV Monitoring .................................................... 7 U.S.C. 450i(c) .............................. 1,400
Potato Research ......................................................................... 7 U.S.C. 450i(c) .............................. 3,000
Aquaculture Research ................................................................ 7 U.S.C. 450i(c) .............................. 2,000
Total, Special Research Grants ............................................. .......................................................... 6,400
Necessary Expenses of Research and Education Activities:
Grants Management System ...................................................... .......................................................... 8,000
Federal Administration—Other Necessary Expenses for Re- .......................................................... 12,020
search and Education Activities.
Total, Necessary Expenses ..................................................... .......................................................... 20,020
Total, Research and Education Activities ............................. .......................................................... 1,057,420
Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards.—The Committee
remains determined to see that quality research and enhanced
human resources development in the agricultural and related
sciences be a nationwide commitment. Therefore, the Committee
continues its direction that not less than 15 percent of the competi-
tive research grant funds be used for USDA’s agricultural research
enhancement awards program, including USDA Established Pro-
gram to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCOR].
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.—The Committee pro-
vides $445,000,000 for the Agriculture and Food Research Initia-
tive [AFRI].
Section 7406 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(Public Law 110–234) specifies priority areas within AFRI, includ-
ing an emphasis on conventional (classical) plant and animal
breeding. The Committee strongly supports providing farmers na-
tionwide with greater access to cultivars that are locally and re-
gionally adapted to their soils, climates, and farming systems. The
37
Committee is concerned that insufficient progress is being made in
prioritizing this effort. As such, the Committee directs the agency
to make regionally adapted, publicly held cultivar development a
distinct funding priority within AFRI for fiscal year 2022 and di-
rects the agency to take steps to improve its tracking of public
cultivar projects within AFRI and report its progress in meeting
this goal.
Agriculture Technology.—The Committee encourages USDA to
support research and development of agricultural robotics, particu-
larly to increase yields in vertically stacked farming production.
Agroacoustics.—The Committee recognizes the growing field of
acoustics and the many positive impacts it may have in agriculture,
particularly with respect to pest management. The Committee en-
courages AFRI to prioritize funding for agroacoustics in its basic
and applied research program, as well as through the Food and Ag-
ricultural Science Enhancement grants.
Alfalfa Seed and Alfalfa Forage Systems Research.—The Com-
mittee rejects the proposal to eliminate funding for the Alfalfa and
Forage Research and provides an additional $500,000 above the fis-
cal year 2021 level for this important research. The Committee
notes that research into alfalfa and forage has the potential to in-
crease alfalfa and forage yields, increase milk production, and im-
prove genetics. The Committee provides funding to support re-
search into the improvement of yields, water conservation, creation
of new uses, and other research areas holding the potential to ad-
vance the alfalfa seed and alfalfa forage industry.
Algae Applications in Agriculture Research.—The Committee en-
courages NIFA to support research on algae and algae application
in agriculture, including new technologies and commercial markets
for renewable and sustainable products derived from algae.
Aquaculture Disease Research.—The Committee encourages
USDA to support aquaculture disease and vaccine research, includ-
ing research on coldwater aquaculture vaccines. There is currently
no national facility for pathogen testing. Research into finfish vac-
cines and pathogens has the potential to accelerate the growth of
sustainable U.S. aquaculture, reduce the trade deficit attributable
to imported seafood, and reduce the pressure on overfished species.
Aquaculture Research.—The Committee rejects the proposal to
eliminate funding for the Aquaculture Research. The Committee
recognizes the importance of the domestic aquaculture industry to
the U.S. economy. The Committee provides funding for aquaculture
research to address issues related to genetics, disease, systems, and
economics.
Brucellosis Research.—Federal and State animal health officials
have made eradicating livestock disease with significant reservoirs
a national animal health priority. This need was reflected in the
Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–79), which made the re-
search and development of surveillance methods, vaccines, vaccina-
tion delivery systems, and diagnostics tests a priority research area
under the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act
(Public Law 89–106), particularly for bovine brucellosis and bovine
tuberculosis. The Committee recognizes the need for this research
and encourages the agency to make competitive grants available to
38
study improved management tools for zoonotic livestock diseases
with significant wildlife reservoirs.
Citrus Disease Research Program.—The Emergency Citrus Dis-
ease Research and Extension Program is intended to discover and
develop tools for early detection, control, and eradication of dis-
eases and pests that threaten domestic citrus production and proc-
essing and is provided $25,000,000 per year in mandatory funding
through the Emergency Citrus Disease Research and Extension
Trust Fund, as authorized in the Agriculture Improvement Act of
2018 (Public Law 115–334). The Committee believes research
projects funded under this authority should be prioritized based on
the critical threat of citrus greening and encourages NIFA, to the
maximum extent practicable, to follow the recommendations of the
National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Advisory
Board’s citrus disease subcommittee and to collaborate with the
HLB–MAC group.
Community Food Projects.—The Committee remains concerned
that large grocer recruitment remains a problem for many commu-
nities, particularly those experiencing higher rates of abandoned or
vacant homes, and encourages the Department to explore innova-
tive approaches to address access to nutritional food options in
urban food deserts. The Committee encourages the Secretary to ex-
plore the development of community-wide urban agriculture
projects that assist in eliminating vacant properties while pro-
viding the communities with much-needed fresh produce.
Countering Seafood Fraud.—The Committee remains concerned
about countering economic fraud and improving the safety of the
U.S. food supply. The Committee is concerned that adequate tech-
nology is not yet available to provide for appropriate sampling of
the food supply. The Committee believes NIFA should conduct re-
search to develop technologies that will provide rapid, portable, and
facile screening of fish species at port sites, as well as wholesale
and retail centers.
Diversification in Agriculture.—The Committee recognizes the
rapid evolution of U.S. agriculture, including the diversification of
practices, markets, and technologies as farms transition from one
generation to another. The Committee encourages NIFA to
prioritize investments that deliver hands-on technical education in
diversified agriculture and food systems and to support technical
colleges seeking to establish beginning farmer programs serving di-
versified agriculture and supporting farm viability.
Dual Use/Dual Benefit.—The Dual Purpose with Dual Benefit:
Research in Biomedicine and Agriculture Using Agriculturally Im-
portant Domestic Species program is an interagency partnership
grants program funded by the National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development [NICHD] and USDA. The Committee
strongly urges continuation of this partnership because it sponsors
use of farm animals as dual purpose models to better understand
developmental origins of disease, fat regulation and obesity, stem
cell biology, assisted reproductive technologies, and infectious dis-
ease, which directly benefits both agriculture and biomedicine. This
program also strengthens ties between human medicine, veterinary
medicine, and animal sciences, which is key to success of the One
Health Initiative.
39
Education Grants for Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serv-
ing Institutions.—The Committee continues to strongly support the
Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions
Education Program, and provides an increase of $1,806,000 that
will allow for an increase in both the consortium and individual
grant components of the program.
Expanding Nutrition Incentive Participation.—The Committee
notes that the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program
[GusNIP] plays an important role in boosting low-income commu-
nities’ abilities to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables, which in
turn improves the health of families and expands economic oppor-
tunities for farmers. The Committee urges NIFA to prioritize
grants that would expand participation among states, SNAP recipi-
ents, and partners that have not previously participated in the pro-
gram. The Committee further encourages NIFA to provide tech-
nical assistance to programs to share best practices and ways to in-
crease partner investments and donations.
Food Safety.—The Committee recommends that NIFA prioritize
research funding for new food safety technologies relating to the
Nation’s meat supply that helps researchers, producers, and manu-
facturers.
Food Safety and Defense Technology.—The Committee is con-
cerned that insufficient progress is being made in the development
of detection technology in the food safety sector. The ability to rap-
idly, accurately, and cost effectively detect pathogens or contami-
nants throughout the food supply chain is critical to protecting the
United States from food-borne illnesses and malicious acts. As
such, the Committee encourages NIFA to increase research of novel
biodetection technologies and the implementation of mobile bio-
detection platforms in real-world conditions. The Department
should consider technologies currently in use or under development
in other fields, such as medicine or homeland security, to deter-
mine whether the technology can meet the needs in either high vol-
ume food production or mobile food defense monitoring.
Foodborne Illness Prevention.—The Committee understands the
significant threats to public health and to the economic viability of
communities impacted by foodborne illness and believes that co-
ordinated and targeted resources are needed to understand the
risks and to develop effective strategies for control. The Committee
continues to encourage NIFA, in coordination with the FDA, to es-
tablish a Center of Excellence for Foodborne Illness to coordinate
a research program to reduce the risk of Listeria monocytogenes.
Function and Efficacy of Nutrients to Treat Obesity.—The Com-
mittee supports research partnerships with academic entities to re-
search how bioactive substances help reduce obesity. Given the per-
sistent obesity problem in the U.S. and the associated and growing
costs to Federal healthcare programs, the Committee strongly sup-
ports increased investment in this area, as it holds great promise
to develop new methods to tackle obesity in our communities.
Genomes to Phenomes.—The Committee is supportive of the
multi-university crop research initiative known as Genomes to
Phenomes and encourages NIFA to support the development of
tools and datasets that can be used across multiple crop species to
improve the output and efficiency of agriculture. The Committee
40
recognizes that investment in this area will help with developing
advanced genome engineering tools for integrated optimization of
crop yield and livestock feed for improved animal reproduction and
nutrition and mitigation of environmental impacts from crop and
livestock production.
Inadequate Infrastructure at Colleges of Agriculture.—The Com-
mittee notes that a recent assessment of the infrastructure at the
Nation’s colleges and schools of agriculture shows that nearly 70
percent of the buildings are at the end of their useful life and that
the cost of deferred maintenance is estimated to be
$11,500,000,000, with a replacement value of $38,100,000,000. In
future budget requests, the Committee directs the Administration
to demonstrate a commitment to this critical research infrastruc-
ture and maintenance backlog to ensure that America remains a
global leader in agricultural production, research, and education.
Laying Hen and Turkey Research Program.—The Committee
notes that research into laying hens and turkeys holds the poten-
tial to improve the efficiency and sustainability of laying hen and
turkey production through integrated, collaborative research and
technology transfer. The Committee recommendation includes
$1,000,000 to support research into laying hen and turkey disease
prevention, antimicrobial resistance, nutrition, gut health, and al-
ternative housing systems under extreme weather conditions, all
which hold the potential to advance the laying hen and turkey in-
dustry.
Lowbush Blueberries.—The Committee directs NIFA to work
with research institutions to develop and refine predictive models
and monitoring technologies for native and invasive pests for incor-
poration into integrated pest management programs for naturally
seeded, native berry crops to increase the margin of food safety and
product quality.
Multi-Trophic Aquaculture Research.—Nearly half the seafood
consumed across the world is the result of aquaculture, and the
aquaculture industry is a critical and growing part of the U.S.
economy. However, less than 1 percent of worldwide production
comes from U.S. producers. The Committee is concerned that ineffi-
cient production technologies hinder the ability of the domestic
aquaculture industry to compete on a global scale. The Committee
supports development and demonstration of an integrated aqua-
culture system that would contain at one site a highly competitive
and sustainable system with a low environmental footprint and pri-
mary self-containment capability. The Committee supports the de-
velopment of a ‘‘Beta’’ model that would focus on developing, build-
ing, operating, demonstrating, and teaching around this intensified,
integrated, bio-secure production technology for feed, fish-plant,
and energy products.
New Beginning for Tribal Students.—The Committee provides
funding for the New Beginning for Tribal Students program and
recognizes the importance of promoting opportunity and access to
higher education for Native American students.
Oak Mites.—The Committee directs NIFA to study the recent in-
festation of oak mites and focus on suppression and eradication
possibilities.
41
Organic Research.—USDA’s National Organic Standards Board
[NOSB] has identified key organic research priorities, many of
which would help to address challenges that have limited the
growth in organic production in this country. The Committee en-
courages NIFA to give strong consideration to the NOSB organic
research priorities when crafting the fiscal year 2022 Request for
Applications for AFRI and the Organic Transition Program. Given
the growing demand for organic products, the Committee also en-
courages USDA to increase the number of organic research projects
funded under AFRI and the Specialty Crop Research Initiative.
Protein Functionality.—The Committee encourages USDA to sup-
port research projects that characterize protein from crop plants
such as chickpeas, sorghum, lentils, fava beans, lupin, rice, oats,
mushrooms, and water lentils to assess their suitability for use in
food products. The Committee is particularly interested in research
projects involving plants that can be easily cultivated in the U.S.
and that are sustainably grown and produced, such as water usage
or fertilizer and pesticide requirements.
Public Plant and Animal Breeding.—The Committee is concerned
about the decline in public plant and animal breeding programs at
our Nation’s land-grant universities [LGUs] over the last 25 years
and encourages LGUs to take steps to foster the next generation
of public plant and animal breeders by placing a higher priority on
the development of publicly available, regionally adapted cultivars
and breeds. For all regions of our Nation to optimize their produc-
tive capacity in an environmentally sustainable manner, it is crit-
ical that the farmers of the region have access to the most up-to-
date cultivars and breeds to meet ever-changing conditions.
Risk Management Education.—In light of the increase in manda-
tory funding provided for the Risk Management Education Pro-
gram by the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Public Law
115–334), the Committee encourages NIFA to raise the maximum
grant size in order to accommodate a wider range of project types
and scopes, including regional and national projects, which would
require a separate larger maximum grant size.
Seafood.—The Committee encourages USDA, in partnership with
universities with established domestic shrimp farming programs, to
support the development of a domestic industry that will help en-
sure the safety and quality of the Nation’s seafood supply, promote
environmentally sustainable aquaculture, create new opportunities
for U.S. agriculture, and forge new markets for U.S. grain and oil-
seed products and technology services.
Small Fruits Research.—The Committee encourages USDA to
support research to promote sustainable production of berry and
grape crops with the goal of reducing pesticide use and improving
quality and yield. The Committee is concerned about invasive in-
sects, such as the spotted winged drosophila and brown
marmorated stink bug, and the negative impact they have on small
fruit production and integrated pest management. The Committee
strongly encourages USDA to support research to improve the abil-
ity to forecast pest and disease spread and implement precision
management strategies.
Specialty Crop Research Initiative.—The Committee emphasizes
the important role of the Specialty Crop Research Initiative in ad-
42
dressing the critical needs of the specialty crop industry through
research and extension activities. The Committee encourages NIFA
to prioritize proposals for, and enhance its overall commitment to,
identifying and addressing threats to pollinators from pests and
diseases and the ability of farmers to extend their growing season
through the use of winter growing techniques, including but not
limited to high tunnel vegetable production.
Supplemental and Alternative Crops.—The Committee rejects the
administration’s proposed reduction for the Supplemental and Al-
ternative Crops research and provides an additional $1,337,000
above the fiscal year 2021 level for this high priority research. The
Committee recognizes the importance of nationally coordinated, re-
gionally managed canola research and extension programs. The
Committee encourages the Secretary to continue to seek input from
stakeholders and to give priority consideration to proposals in the
peer review process that address research needs in production
areas with the greatest potential to expand, as well as those where
canola production is established and needs to be maintained.
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education [SARE].—The
Committee is strongly supportive of the SARE program and directs
USDA to ensure that research, education, and extension activities
carried out within SARE remain intact. The Committee encourages
the Secretary to support professional development program activi-
ties such as training, grants, and resources for agricultural profes-
sionals to build their awareness, knowledge, and skills related to
soil health and carbon sequestration.
Sustainable Agricultural Systems.—The Committee applauds
NIFA for its inclusion of artificial intelligence, machine learning,
and predictive science in AFRI and encourages NIFA to prioritize
the Sustainable Agricultural Systems program area, particularly
proposals that include a focus on digital agriculture and the
digitally augmented food supply chain.
U.S. Dairy Education and Training.—The Committee encourages
NIFA to support cooperative work with State-run universities in
the Southwest with experience in bringing together students and
young dairy professionals from multiple States in summer pro-
grams designed to provide practical dairy teaching with the goal of
facilitating research into workforce safety and antimicrobial stew-
ardship.
Veterinary Corps.—Veterinarians fulfilling the terms of a con-
tract under USDA’s Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Pro-
gram, authorized by the National Veterinary Medical Services Act
(Public Law 108–161), shall be members of the National Veterinary
Medical Services Corps and members who have fulfilled the terms
of their contract shall be alumni of the Corps.
Veterinary Shortages.—The Committee is concerned by the crit-
ical shortage of veterinarians in the public, private, industrial, and
academic sectors, which serve on the front lines of upholding our
Nation’s food safety, public health, animal health, and homeland
security. The Committee also notes that large portions of rural
America have inadequate access to livestock and public health vet-
erinarians. As such, the Committee provides an increase in pro-
gram funding for both the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment
Program and the Veterinary Services Grant Program.
43
Workforce Development.—Within the AFRI Education and Work-
force Development initiative, the Committee directs the Secretary
to prioritize applications that establish or expand career and tech-
nical training opportunities for meat processing.
NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. ¥$11,880,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... ¥11,880,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥11,880,000
The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, authorized
by the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act (Public Law
103–382), provides an endowment for the 1994 land-grant institu-
tions (34 tribally-controlled colleges). This program enhances edu-
cational opportunity for Native Americans by building educational
capacity at these institutions in the areas of student recruitment
and retention, curricula development, faculty preparation, instruc-
tion delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching.
Income funds are also available for facility renovation, repair, con-
struction, and maintenance. On the termination of each fiscal year,
the Secretary shall withdraw the income from the endowment fund
for the fiscal year, and, after making adjustments for the cost of
administering the endowment fund, distribute the adjusted income
as follows: 60 percent of the adjusted income from these funds shall
be distributed among the 1994 land-grant institutions on a pro rata
basis, the proportionate share being based on the Indian student
count; and 40 percent of the adjusted income shall be distributed
in equal shares to the 1994 land-grant institutions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,880,000 for
the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund.
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $538,447,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 538,447,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 559,400,000
Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-Lever
Act of May 8, 1914, as amended (Public Law 63–95). USDA is au-
thorized to provide, through the land-grant colleges, cooperative ex-
tension work that consists of the development of practical applica-
tions of research knowledge and the giving of instruction and prac-
tical demonstrations of existing or improved practices or tech-
nologies in agriculture and related subjects, and to encourage the
application of such information by demonstrations, publications,
through 4–H clubs, and other means to persons not in attendance
or resident at the colleges.
To fulfill the requirements of the Smith-Lever Act (Public Law
63–95), State and county extension offices in each State, the Dis-
trict of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct edu-
cational programs to improve American agriculture and strengthen
the Nation’s families and communities.
44
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $559,400,000 for
extension activities of the National Institute of Food and Agri-
culture.
The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommenda-
tions for extension activities:
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE—EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
[Dollars in thousands]
Committee
Program/Activity Authorization recommendation
Smith-Lever Act, Section 3(b) and 3(c) and Cooperative Extension 7 U.S.C. 343(b) and (c) and 208(c) 330,000
of Public Law 93–471.
Extension Services at 1890 Institutions ............................................. 7 U.S.C. 3221 .................................. 62,000
Extension Services at 1994 Institutions ............................................. 7 U.S.C. 343(b)(3) ........................... 10,000
Facility Improvements at 1890 Institutions ....................................... 7 U.S.C. 3222b ................................ 21,500
Renewable Resources Extension Act ................................................... 16 U.S.C. 1671 et seq. ................... 4,100
Rural Health and Safety Education Programs ................................... 7 U.S.C. 2662(i) .............................. 5,000
Food and Animal Residue Avoidance Database Program .................. 7 U.S.C. 7642 .................................. 2,500
Women and Minorities in STEM Fields ............................................... 7 U.S.C. 5925 .................................. 2,000
Food Safety Outreach Program ........................................................... 7 U.S.C. 7625 .................................. 10,000
Food and Agriculture Service Learning ............................................... 7 U.S.C. 7633 .................................. 2,500
Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network ..................................... 7 U.S.C. 5936 .................................. 10,000
Smith-Lever Act, Section 3(d):
Food and Nutrition Education .................................................... 7 U.S.C. 343(d) ............................... 70,000
Farm Safety and Youth Farm Safety Education Programs ....... 7 U.S.C. 343(d) ............................... 5,000
New Technologies for Agricultural Extension ............................. 7 U.S.C. 343(d) ............................... 3,600
Children, Youth, and Families at Risk ...................................... 7 U.S.C. 343(d) ............................... 8,600
Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program ........................ 7 U.S.C. 343(d) ............................... 3,500
Total, Section 3(d) ................................................................. .......................................................... 90,700
Necessary Expenses of Extension Activities:
Agriculture in the K–12 Classroom ........................................... 7 U.S.C. 3152(j) .............................. 1,000
Federal Administration—Other Necessary Expenses for Exten- .......................................................... 8,100
sion Activities.
Total, Necessary Expenses ..................................................... .......................................................... 9,100
Total, Extension Activities ..................................................... .......................................................... 559,400
Cooperative Extension System.—The Committee recognizes the
essential function that extension plays in ensuring that farmers,
ranchers, and communities of all sizes are empowered to meet the
challenges they face, adapt to changing technology and a changing
climate, improve nutrition and food safety, prepare for and respond
to emergencies, and protect our environment. The Committee is
concerned that the Federal investment in this critical Federal,
State, and local partnership has lagged in recent years, just as ex-
traordinary stresses have been placed on farmers, ranchers, rural
businesses, and communities. As such, the Committee provides an
additional $15,000,000 for the Smith-Lever Act, Section 3(b) and (c)
programs and Cooperative Extension, an additional $1,500,000 for
the Extension Services at 1994 Institutions, and an additional
$300,000 for the federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program.
Extension Design Initiative.—The Committee recognizes that for
decades, the foundation of traditional farm extension programs had
researchers and educators working on the farms and fields along-
side crop and livestock producers, but that changes are needed to
45
develop a 21st century extension to meet the needs of today’s farm-
ers. The Committee notes that new efforts require USDA to use
high-performance computing to develop, test, and deploy new dig-
ital infrastructure and platforms that can translate research into
real-time interactive feedback, online modeling, demonstration, and
simulations. The Committee directs NIFA to conduct meetings with
producers, stakeholders, and policymakers to begin developing a
framework for the next generation of farm extension programs.
Farmer Stress.—The Committee notes that farmers and individ-
uals who work in agriculture face highly stressful working condi-
tions, which can contribute to serious behavioral health concerns.
The Committee remains concerned that farmers and ranchers face
highly stressful working conditions, which can contribute to serious
behavioral health concerns, especially during downturns in the
farm economy and trade uncertainty. The Committee continues to
urge the Department to prioritize proposals from regions that have
seen high levels of farm bankruptcies, auctions, and other signals
of severe economic distress when reviewing award applications for
the Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network Program. The
Committee directs the Secretary to provide annual reports to Con-
gress detailing changes in the indicators of stress, data on effective
stress response strategies, and emerging trends in rural economic
and healthcare needs resulting from stress interventions, as well as
any barriers to collecting or accessing information on farmers’ men-
tal health. The report should also describe the impact of the Farm
and Ranch Stress Assistance Network Program, the Farm and
Ranch Stress Assistance Network—State Departments of Agri-
culture Program, and trends in rates of suicide and behavioral
health concerns among farmers and ranchers.
Minority Outreach.—The Committee is concerned that extension
service resources do not reach minority, socially disadvantaged,
and Tribal communities in proportion to their participation in the
agricultural sector. All institutions that receive extension funding
should seek to ensure that an equitable percentage of their overall
extension work reaches minority, socially disadvantaged, and Trib-
al communities. The Committee directs NIFA to evaluate distribu-
tion of extension resources to these three populations and report to
the Committee no later than 90 days after enactment of this Act.
Rural Opioid Addiction Training.—The Committee provides
$5,000,000 for Rural Health and Safety Education Programs
[RHSE] for the sole purpose of combatting opioid abuse in rural
communities. The Committee reminds USDA of the statutory re-
quirement in the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (Public
Law 115–334) for fiscal years 2019 through 2025 that the Secretary
give priority to applications addressing substance use disorder edu-
cation and treatment and the prevention of substance use disorder.
The Committee is still waiting for NIFA to provide a report to the
Committee detailing RHSE funding awarded to projects addressing
opioid abuse, projects combatting other types of substance abuse,
and projects unrelated to substance abuse for the past three fiscal
years.
46
INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $39,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 39,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,000,000
Section 406, as amended, of the Agricultural Research, Exten-
sion, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–85) au-
thorizes an integrated research, education, and extension competi-
tive grants program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,000,000 for
integrated activities of the National Institute of Food and Agri-
culture.
The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommenda-
tions for integrated activities:
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE—INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
[Dollars in thousands]
Committee
Program/Activity Authorization recommendation
Methyl Bromide Transition Program ................................................... 7 U.S.C. 7626 .................................. 2,000
Organic Transition Program ................................................................ 7 U.S.C. 7626 .................................. 7,500
Regional Rural Development Centers ................................................. 7 U.S.C. 3157(c)(1)(B) .................... 2,500
Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative ............................................. 7 U.S.C. 3351 .................................. 8,000
Crop Protection/Pest Management ...................................................... 7 U.S.C. 7626 .................................. 20,000
Total, Integrated Activities .................................................... .......................................................... 40,000
Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative.—The Committee sup-
ports the important work being done through the publicly funded
diagnostic laboratory network and encourages NIFA to prioritize
funding to strengthen animal health diagnostic laboratories, taking
into consideration the following: the degree to which the capacity
for surveillance, monitoring, response, and capacity is enhanced;
the concentration of human and animal populations that are di-
rectly at risk; trade, tourism, and cultural considerations; geog-
raphy, ecology, and climate; evidence of active collaboration with
and support of the State animal health officials; those States with
highest risk for the introduction of foreign and emerging pests and
diseases; and evidence of stakeholder support and engagement.
Organic Transition.—The Committee provides an increase of
$500,000 for the Organic Transition Program and directs the agen-
cy to use this increase to focus specifically on research topics re-
lated to the role of organic agriculture with regard to climate
change.
Potato Research.—To minimize the application of pesticides and
to maximize the yield and quality of harvested potatoes, the Com-
mittee directs the Secretary to support pest management programs
in potato growing States. Such programs help scientists track po-
tential pest outbreaks and provide growers and industry profes-
sionals with current information on specific and timely treatments.
Additionally, the programs help identify serious diseases, such as
late blight disease, in their early stages, allowing for preventive
measures to be put into place quickly to avoid crop losses.
47
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND
REGULATORY PROGRAMS
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $809,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 1,327,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,577,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory
Programs provides direction and coordination in carrying out laws
with respect to the Department’s marketing, grading, and stand-
ardization activities related to grain; competitive marketing prac-
tices of livestock, marketing orders, and various programs; veteri-
nary services; and plant protection and quarantine. The Office has
oversight and management responsibilities for the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] and Agricultural Mar-
keting Service [AMS].
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,577,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory
Programs.
Proposed User Fees.—The Committee continues to reject past
proposals to administratively implement new user fees to cover the
government’s full cost for providing services to certain bene-
ficiaries, including licenses for animal dealers, veterinary biologics
product approval, regulatory review of genetically engineered orga-
nisms, checkoff programs, domestic hemp production, livestock
dealers, and grain regulatory program. The Committee strongly be-
lieves that USDA should not propose new user fees without taking
into account the full impact on farmers, ranchers, and beneficiaries
who would be forced to contend with rapid changes in these pro-
grams and additional burdensome costs without prior notice.
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $1,064,179,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 1,102,222,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,122,116,000
The Secretary of Agriculture established the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service on April 2, 1972, under the authority of
reorganization plan No. 2 of 1953, and other authorities. The major
objectives of APHIS are to protect the animal and plant resources
of the Nation from diseases and pests. These objectives are carried
out under the major areas of activity, as follows:
Safeguarding and Emergency Preparedness/Response.—The
agency monitors plant and animal health worldwide and sets im-
port polices to prevent the introduction of foreign plant and animal
pests and diseases. Domestically, the agency works cooperatively to
conduct plant and animal health monitoring programs, pursue
eradication, or limit the spread of the threat. The agency also con-
ducts diagnostic laboratory activities that support disease preven-
tion, detection, control, and eradication programs. In addition, the
agency protects agriculture from detrimental animal predators and
48
through its regulatory structure helps advance genetic research
while protecting against the release of harmful organisms.
Safe Trade and International Technical Assistance.—The agency
helps resolve technical trade issues to ensure the smooth and safe
movement of agricultural commodities into and out of the United
States. The agency negotiates animal and plant health certification
requirements and assists U.S. exporters in meeting foreign regu-
latory demands. In addition, the agency assists developing coun-
tries in improving their safeguarding systems to protect the United
States from emerging plant and animal pests and diseases.
Animal Care.—The agency conducts regulatory activities that en-
sure the humane care and treatment of animals and horses as re-
quired by the Animal Welfare Act (Public Law 89–544) and Horse
Protection Acts (Public Law 91–540). These activities include in-
spection of certain establishments that handle animals intended for
research, exhibition, and as pets, and monitoring certain horse
shows.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,122,116,000
for salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health Inspec-
tion Service.
The following table reflects the Committee’s specific rec-
ommendations for APHIS:
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Safeguarding and International Technical Assistance:
Animal Health Technical Services .............................................. 38,093 38,486 38,486
Aquatic Animal Health ................................................................ 2,272 2,306 5,756
Avian Health ............................................................................... 63,213 63,833 63,833
Cattle Health ............................................................................... 105,216 106,500 106,500
Equine, Cervid and Small Ruminant Health .............................. 28,982 31,284 32,284
National Veterinary Stockpile ...................................................... 5,736 5,751 6,751
Swine Health ............................................................................... 25,020 25,390 25,390
Veterinary Biologics .................................................................... 20,570 20,898 20,898
Veterinary Diagnostics ................................................................ 56,979 57,414 66,414
Zoonotic Disease Management ................................................... 19,620 19,782 19,782
Subtotal, Animal Health ......................................................... 365,701 371,644 386,094
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (Appropriated) .................... 32,893 33,849 33,849
Cotton Pests ................................................................................ 13,597 13,725 14,725
Field crop & Rangeland Ecosystems Pests ................................ 10,942 14,137 11,137
Pest Detection ............................................................................. 27,733 28,218 28,218
Plant Protection Methods Development ...................................... 20,884 21,217 21,217
Specialty Crop Pests ................................................................... 196,553 209,342 210,342
Tree & Wood Pests ...................................................................... 60,456 61,217 61,217
Subtotal, Plant Health ............................................................ 363,058 381,705 380,705
Wildlife Damage Management .................................................... 111,647 113,142 115,692
Wildlife Services Methods Development ..................................... 21,046 24,363 33,483
Subtotal, Wildlife Services ..................................................... 132,693 137,505 149,175
Animal & Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement ........................ 16,400 16,697 16,697
49
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Biotechnology Regulatory Services ............................................. 19,020 19,262 19,262
Subtotal, Regulatory Services ................................................ 35,420 35,959 35,959
Civilian Climate Corps ................................................................ .......................... 10,000 ..........................
Contingency Fund ....................................................................... 478 491 491
Emergency Preparedness & Response ........................................ 41,268 38,380 38,380
Subtotal, Emergency Management ......................................... 41,746 48,871 38,871
Subtotal, Safeguarding and Emergency Preparedness/Re-
sponse ................................................................................ 938,618 975,684 990,804
Safe Trade and International Technical Assistance:
Agriculture Import/Export ............................................................ 15,722 15,928 16,928
Overseas Technical & Trade Operations .................................... 24,198 24,333 24,333
Subtotal, Safe Trade .............................................................. 39,920 40,261 41,261
Animal Welfare:
Animal Welfare ............................................................................ 31,661 32,256 32,256
Horse Protection .......................................................................... 2,009 2,040 2,340
Subtotal, Animal Welfare ....................................................... 33,670 34,296 34,596
Agency Management:
APHIS Information Technology Infrastructure ............................. 4,251 4,251 4,251
Physical/Operational Security ..................................................... 5,153 5,163 5,163
Rent and DHS Security Payments .............................................. 42,567 42,567 42,567
Subtotal, Agency Management ............................................... 51,971 51,981 51,981
Congressionally Directed Spending ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,474
Total, Direct Appropriation ..................................................... 1,064,179 1,102,222 1,122,116
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection.—The Committee recognizes
that the prevention of infestations of pests and diseases is signifi-
cantly more cost effective than subsequent control or eradication.
This is an important Federal responsibility, and the Committee
provides $33,849,000 for the agricultural quarantine inspections
[AQI] function, including pre-departure and interline inspections,
and canine detection and surveillance activities.
The Committee notes that assessing AQI treatment monitoring
fees on a per-enclosure basis imposes disproportionate impacts on
industry and user groups at certain key ports of entry, including
ports along the Southeastern United States. USDA is encouraged
to continue evaluating alternative and equitable funding mecha-
nisms in consultation with relevant stakeholder groups.
Apple Snails.—The Committee is concerned with the invasive
apple snail (Pomaceae maculata) that is negatively impacting the
crawfish population and rice crop in Louisiana and other affected
states. The Committee directs APHIS to work with the Agricultural
Research Service [ARS] and stakeholders and provides an addi-
tional $1,000,000 to develop an integrated management program
for control of the apple snail infestation.
50
Animal Welfare.—The Committee is concerned about APHIS’s
Animal Care program and the steep decline in enforcement related
to violations of the Animal Welfare Act. The Committee urges the
agency to reform its current licensing and enforcement scheme.
While the agency took steps towards this goal over the last year,
the Committee believes more progress can be made. This includes,
but is not limited to: ensuring consistent, thorough, unannounced
inspections on a regular basis; ensuring each failure to allow access
for inspection and each violation or failure to comply with animal
welfare standards is documented on an inspection report; and, re-
quiring that inspection reports which identify violations or failures
of compliance be shared with relevant local, State, and Federal
agencies.
The Committee is also concerned about online dog dealers that
are continuing to sell animals without the necessary USDA licenses
pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act (Public Law 89–544). The
Committee encourages APHIS to continue to conduct robust over-
sight and enforcement of this statute and the 2013 rule requiring
online dealers who are selling animals to consumers sight-unseen
to have the necessary license.
Avian Influenza.—The Committee recognizes the extreme eco-
nomic hardship posed to gamebird and egg farmers when flocks are
determined to be infected by high and low pathogenic avian influ-
enza and acknowledges the severe limitations on controlled mar-
keting available to producers of live game birds, as well as the in-
come loss from egg production. The Committee encourages APHIS
to provide full indemnity coverage for gamebird and egg operations
and cease attempts to limit coverage.
Cattle Fever Ticks.—The Committee provides no less than the fis-
cal year 2021 level for cattle fever tick research needs and directs
APHIS to coordinate with ARS on the development of its long-term
cattle fever tick research program.
The Committee is also concerned that the cattle fever tick quar-
antine area is expanding despite efforts to constrain their spread.
To prevent movement of livestock and game animals outside of the
quarantined or high-risk premises and prevent introduction of live-
stock and game animals from fever tick infested areas, the Com-
mittee encourages APHIS to use available funds for a cost-share
program for the construction and repair of livestock or game fenc-
ing on private, State and Federal lands. The Committee directs
USDA, in conjunction with State animal health commissions and
Federal partners, to develop a strategy to exclude wildlife from
areas at highest risk of tick spread from quarantined areas and
from infested areas and identify properties that qualify for funds
within these areas.
Chronic Wasting Disease [CWD].—The Committee provides no
less than $14,000,000 for cervid health activities. The Committee
is concerned about the growing threat of CWD and its impact on
free-ranging deer populations. Of the amount provided for cervid
health activities, $10,000,000 shall be for APHIS to allocate funds
directly to State departments of wildlife and State departments of
agriculture to further develop and implement chronic wasting dis-
ease surveillance, testing, management, and response activities. In
allocating these funds, APHIS shall give priority to States that
51
have experienced a recent incident of CWD, have a CWD moni-
toring and surveillance program, and have a diagnostic laboratory
system certified for CWD testing. Within the remaining $4,000,000
provided, APHIS should give consideration to indemnity payments
if warranted.
Chronic Wasting Disease Research and Development.—The Com-
mittee provides an additional $3,000,000 above the fiscal year 2021
enacted level for Wildlife Services Methods Development for CWD
work at the National Wildlife Research Center, and directs APHIS
to continue working with University collaborators to provide re-
search support to the overall effort to detect, combat and control
CWD.
Citrus Health Response Program [CHRP].—CHRP is a national
effort to maintain a viable citrus industry within the United States,
maintain producers’ continued access to export markets, and safe-
guard citrus producing States against a variety of invasive pests
and diseases. These funds are designed to partner with State de-
partments of agriculture and industry groups to address the chal-
lenges of citrus pests and diseases. In addition to the funds pro-
vided in this account, the Committee encourages APHIS to utilize
the funds available in the Plant Pest and Disease Management and
Disaster Prevention Programs account to the greatest extent pos-
sible to sustain the economic viability of the citrus industry.
Cogongrass Management and Control.—The Committee remains
concerned about the rapid spread of cogongrass and its impact on
forest productivity, wildlife habitat, and private landowners. The
Committee provides $3,000,000 for APHIS to partner with State
departments of agriculture and forestry commissions in States con-
sidered to be the epicenter of infestations to assist with the control
and treatment of cogongrass in order to slow the advancing front
of this invasive plant-pest species.
Congressionally Directed Spending [CDS].—The Committee has
provided CDS for certain activities and locations under APHIS.
While the Committee has provided the funding, recipients of CDS
are still required to apply for the funding and must meet all statu-
tory and regulatory requirements. The Committee expects the
agency to review the applications and fund projects in the same
manner as in previous years.
Eastern Equine Encephalitis.—The Committee remains con-
cerned about the capacity of States to conduct surveillance, testing,
prevention, and research relating to Eastern Equine Encephalitis.
The Committee provides $1,000,000 to support ongoing cooperative
agreements with impacted States.
Feral Cattle in the Gila National Forest Wilderness Area.—The
continued presence of feral cattle in the Gila National Forest Wil-
derness Area in New Mexico is negatively impacting both the eco-
system and recreational use of the area. The Committee directs the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service—Wildlife Services and
the United States Forest Service to address this issue as expedi-
tiously as feasible.
Huanglongbing Emergency Response.—The Committee maintains
the increased funding levels for Huanglongbing Emergency Re-
sponse within the Specialty Crop Pests line item included in fiscal
year 2021. The Committee encourages APHIS to allocate sufficient
52
resources in order to continue vital management, control, and asso-
ciated activities to address citrus greening. The disease, for which
there is no cure, has caused a reduction in citrus production by
over 60 percent since 2007 in Florida alone. All citrus producing
counties in Texas are under quarantine, and California has de-
tected the disease in some backyard trees in the Los Angeles basin.
The spread of this disease has called the domestic citrus industry’s
future into question, costing thousands of jobs and millions in lost
revenue and increased production costs per acre. In addition, the
agency is encouraged to support priorities and strategies identified
by the HLB–MAC group which will benefit the citrus industry. The
agency should appropriately allocate resources based on critical
need and maximum effect to the citrus industry. The Committee
maintains the fiscal year 2021 funding level for citrus health to
support priorities and strategies identified by the HLB–MAC
group. The MAC is focused on short-term solutions to help the cit-
rus industry, and the cooperative nature of Federal, State, and in-
dustry representatives in this group is expected to result in the de-
velopment of tools and techniques to address this devastating dis-
ease. Helping growers explore new possible solutions, the MAC has
been an effective resource. These citrus health activities directly
protect citrus production on approximately 765,000 acres in the
United States worth more than $11,000,000,000 in total.
Huanglongbing Multi-Agency Coordination Group.—The Com-
mittee recognizes the significant economic impact of this disease on
the citrus industry, which is especially acute in Florida and is a
growing concern in both Texas and California. The Committee also
understands that growers are requesting the right to try treat-
ments that have begun to show success in early stages of testing.
The Committee encourages the HLB–MAC group to explore and
identify new methods to expedite the delivery of promising treat-
ments directly to growers. Finally, the Committee expects that any
funds which are redirected from existing HLB–MAC projects be
repurposed to other priority HLB–MAC projects that are showing
promising results to ensure these critical funds remain committed
to facilitating the design and implementation of the rapid delivery
pathway to growers.
Imported Dogs.—The Committee is aware that the USDA issued
a report that showed that over one million dogs are imported into
the United States each year. Of that number, however, less than
1 percent are subject to thorough health screenings to show that
they are healthy, vaccinated and free of disease prior to entering
the country. The limited health requirements and inspection has
resulted in the importation of animals that arrive in poor health,
as well as the importation of animals carrying various diseases
from rabies to canine influenza to leptospirosis, among others. Dis-
eases such as canine rabies have cost millions of dollars to eradi-
cate in the United States and unscreened animal imports threaten
to undue that progress while threatening public health. Therefore,
the Committee directs APHIS to strengthen its oversight of im-
ported dogs, including stronger interagency coordination to better
protect animal and public health.
Lacey Act Implementation.—The Committee recognizes the im-
portance of the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371–3378) in addressing traf-
53
ficking of illegally taken wildlife, fish, and plants, including illegal
deforestation activities. The Committee provides an additional
$1,000,000 above the fiscal year 2021 level to support the imple-
mentation of the Lacey Act within the Safe Trade and Inter-
national Technical Assistance program.
National Animal Health Laboratory Network.—The Committee
provides an additional $5,000,000 for the National Animal Health
Laboratory Network.
National Aquatic Animal Health Plan.—The Committee provides
an increase of $3,450,000 to support the implementation of the
2021–2023 National Aquaculture Health Plan and the Comprehen-
sive Aquaculture Health Program Standards to protect aquatic ani-
mal health, enhance individual biosecurity, and facilitate domestic
and international commerce in fish and shellfish.
National Bio- and Agro-Defense Human Capital Development.—
The Committee provides $3,000,000 for APHIS to ensure necessary
steps are taken to develop a qualified workforce comprised of sub-
ject matter experts in foreign, emerging, and zoonotic diseases and
capable of developing, validating, and conducting needed
diagnostics, performing epidemiologic studies, and completing
bioinformatics analyses. The Committee encourages APHIS to es-
tablish cooperative agreements with academic research institu-
tions, particularly non-land grant Hispanic-Serving Institutions, to
support the next generation of the NBAF workforce.
National Clean Plant Network-Berries.—Of the funds made avail-
able for the National Clean Plant Network [NCPN], the Committee
provides $300,000 for equipment purchases to ensure the establish-
ment of an additional diagnostic and therapy center for the NCPN–
Berries. Further, no less than the fiscal year 2021 level should be
available for the NCPN–Berries diagnostic center. The Committee
encourages APHIS to continue establishing adequate diagnostic,
therapeutic, and foundation capacity for the NCPN-supported Ber-
ries program.
Non-lethal Strategies.—The Committee is aware that Wildlife
Services has worked with landowners to deploy non-lethal strate-
gies, such as fladry, electric fencing, and livestock guardian dogs,
to reduce predator depredation on livestock. The Committee pro-
vides $2,500,000 for Wildlife Services to hire personnel exclusively
to promote and implement non-lethal livestock-predator conflict de-
terrence techniques in interested States, with a focus on reducing
human-wildlife conflicts related to predators and beavers in the
Western Region and Great Lakes States and to assist in providing
training in these techniques to agricultural producers, landowners,
and other agency personnel in collaboration with the National
Wildlife Research Center.
National Veterinary Stockpile.—Foot and Mouth Disease [FMD]
remains a grave threat to the animal agriculture industry in the
United States. The U.S. agriculture industry must remain vigilant
and be prepared in the event of an FMD outbreak. The Committee
provides an additional $1,000,000 above fiscal year 2021 enacted
levels for the National Veterinary Stockpile to protect the Nation’s
food supply by maintaining enough countermeasures capable of de-
ployment against the most damaging animal diseases
54
Poultry Indemnity Payments.—The Committee directs USDA to
coordinate amongst all relevant agencies under its authority to up-
date, and where applicable, develop consistent, easily replicated
formulas on an annual basis to estimate market values of livestock
and poultry categories for indemnity purposes. In developing and
updating these annual values, USDA should ensure that they re-
flect applicable modern production practices, and relevant livestock
and poultry markets so that payments by USDA represent average
fair market values for the category of animal that the compensa-
tion payment is intended to cover.
Risk Assessment for Motile Aeromonad Septicemia (MAS).—The
Committee is concerned about the risk of introduction off foreign
animal diseases associated with the importation of farm-raised
Siluriformes fish, such as catfish. Chronic infectious diseases such
as MAS pose a significant economic risk to the long-term health of
the domestic farm-raised fish industry, and the Committee notes
that MAS outbreaks like those from virulent Aeromonas hydrophila
in the U.S. have been linked back to farmed fish in China and
Southeast Asia. The Committee also notes that, while FSIS regu-
lates the processing of catfish under the Federal Meat Inspection
Act, there are no USDA-Veterinary Services regulations for MAS,
nor do FSIS regulations apply regarding MAS. The Committee is
displeased with the length of time it has taken APHIS to complete
its ongoing MAS risk assessment, and directs APHIS to complete
it within 30 days of enactment of this Act.
Roseau Cane.—The Committee remains concerned with the
invasive species scale insect pest that is destroying Roseau cane in
the Mississippi River’s Delta region along the Gulf of Mexico. An
estimated 225,000 acres of wetlands in the Delta have been af-
fected with the die-off, and Roseau cane is important in maintain-
ing a healthy marsh and preventing erosion. The Committee di-
rects APHIS to work with ARS and stakeholders and provides no
less than the fiscal year 2021 level to develop an integrated man-
agement program for control of the Roseau cane scale insect pest
infestation.
Soring.—The Committee has consistently recognized the need for
the equine industry and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Services to cooperate in order to eliminate the soring of horses. In
2021, the National Academy of Sciences recognized the importance
of developing an objective science-based inspection ensures accu-
racy and fairness. For this reason, the Committee includes
$300,000 for APHIS to begin utilizing swabbing for prohibited sub-
stances and other science-based inspection methods, radiology, and
other objective measures as part of its horse soring inspection pro-
tocol.
Sudden Oak Death.—The European strain 1 [EU1] and the
North American strain 1 [NA1] of the sudden oak death pathogen
are major threats to western Douglas-fir/tanoak forests, resulting
in quarantine restrictions that threaten U.S. forests and export
markets for log shipments and lily bulbs. The Committee rec-
ommendation includes no less than the fiscal year 2021 funding
level to improve understanding of EU1 and NA1 strains of the sud-
den oak death pathogen and treatment methods to inform control
and management techniques in wildlands.
55
West Nile Virus.—The Committee remains concerned with the
threats to human and animal health posed by West Nile virus and
recognizes that a critical strategy for addressing these threats is
necessary to prevent the infection and transmission by known vec-
tors, including farm-raised alligators. The Committee encourages
APHIS to further investigate West Nile virus and other infectious
diseases affecting farm-raised alligators and to develop treatments
and methods to prevent infection and transmission.
Wildlife Damage Management.—APHIS is responsible for pro-
viding Federal leadership in managing problems caused by wildlife.
The Committee provides $115,692,000 for wildlife damage control
to maintain priority initiatives, including preventing the transport
of invasive snakes and other harmful species. The Committee pro-
vides an additional $250,000 above the fiscal year 2021 level for
the agency to reduce blackbird depredation in the Northern Great
Plains.
The Committee maintains support for assistance to catfish pro-
ducers to help mitigate wildlife depredation, particularly as it per-
tains to fish-eating and disease-carrying birds. The Committee pro-
vides $1,300,000 above the fiscal year 2021 level for damage man-
agement efforts and the development of methods to assist pro-
ducers in combatting the persistent threat and economic hardship
caused by cormorants, pelicans, and other birds.
The Committee recognizes the importance of the National Feral
Swine Damage Management Program in reducing adverse ecologi-
cal and economic impacts caused by feral swine across the country.
The Committee provides an additional $1,000,000 above the fiscal
year 2021 level in support of APHIS efforts to decrease these
invasive pests’ damage and risk to agriculture, natural resources,
and property.
The Committee provides $28,000,000 for the National Rabies
Management Program to fortify existing barriers and advance pre-
vention and eradication efforts.
Wildlife Diseases.—The Committee provides an increase of
$8,000,000 for wildlife disease surveillance, diagnostics methods de-
velopment, and genetic risk assessments for wildlife diseases im-
pacting agriculture and human health, and directs APHIS to con-
duct this research in collaboration with University partners.
Wildlife Services Education and Training.—The Committee is
aware of the wide range of hazardous procedures and materials uti-
lized by APHIS personnel in the conduct of daily duties. In addi-
tion, a recent comprehensive study noted the critical need to pro-
vide standardized safety training, certification, and database man-
agement for tracking to ensure the safest working environment
possible. As such, the Committee provides $2,000,000 within Wild-
life Damage Management to maintain a National Training Acad-
emy focused on those areas of greatest concern such as pyrotech-
nics, firearms, hazardous materials, immobilization and euthanasia
drugs, pesticides, animal care and handling, land vehicles,
watercraft, and zoonotic diseases.
56
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $3,175,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 3,175,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,175,000
The APHIS appropriation for Buildings and Facilities funds
major nonrecurring construction projects in support of specific pro-
gram activities and recurring construction, alterations, preventive
maintenance, and repairs of existing APHIS facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of
$3,175,000 for buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
This funding is necessary to allow APHIS to maintain existing
facilities and perform critically needed repairs to and replacements
of building components, such as heating, ventilation, and air-condi-
tioning on a prioritized basis at APHIS facilities. The Committee
notes that due to the environmentally sensitive nature of many
APHIS facilities, closure of a facility could result if APHIS is un-
able to complete the required repairs.
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
MARKETING SERVICES
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $188,358,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 213,157,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 231,063,000
The Agricultural Marketing Service was established by the Sec-
retary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972. AMS carries out programs
authorized by more than 50 different statutory authorities, the pri-
mary ones being the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C.
1621–1627, 1635–1638); the U.S. Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C.
51–65); the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 471–476);
the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511–511q); the Perishable Ag-
ricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a–499t); the Egg Products
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031–1056); and section 32 of the Act of
1935 (Public Law 74–320, 7 U.S.C. 612c).
Programs administered by this agency include the market news
services, standardization, grading, classing, shell egg surveillance
services, transportation services, wholesale farmers and alternative
market development, grant payments to States for marketing ac-
tivities, the Federal administration of marketing agreements and
orders, commodity purchases, the Perishable Agricultural Commod-
ities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a–499t), the Plant Variety Protection Act
(Public Law 71–325), and market protection and promotion activi-
ties.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $231,063,000 for
Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing Service. This in-
cludes a total increase of $2,367,000 for pay and retirement con-
tribution. In addition to that increase, the Committee provides the
following increases: $1,000,000 for the Acer Access and Develop-
57
ment Program; $3,406,000 for the National Organic Program;
$500,000 for the Organic Production and Market Data Initiative;
$2,000,000 for additional staffing, enforcement, and rulemaking
needs; and $2,000,000 for oversight and enforcement of the Packers
and Stockyards Act.
The Committee includes in this account $25,000,000 for the
Dairy Business Innovation Initiatives, funded elsewhere in the Act
at $22,000,000 in 2021; and $6,000,000 for the Micro-grants for
Food Security Program, funded elsewhere in the Act at $5,000,000
in 2021.
Acer Access and Development.—The Committee provides
$7,000,000 for the Acer Access and Development Program. The Sec-
retary shall use this funding for competitive grants that support
the promotion of research and education, natural resource sustain-
ability, and market development and promotion. The Secretary
shall prioritize proposals from regions with sufficient distribution
of Acer saccharum to support commercially viable maple syrup in-
dustry.
Dairy Business Innovation.—The Committee rejects the proposed
elimination of the Dairy Business Innovation Initiatives, as author-
ized by Section 12513 of the Agriculture Improvement Act. Further,
the Committee limits the use of funds provided for this program to
the three regional initiatives funded in Fiscal Year 2020. The Sec-
retary is encouraged to find ways to apply this successful model to
other agriculture sectors, including meat processing, in a manner
that avoids the interruption of the Dairy Business Innovation Ini-
tiatives. The harsh economic losses dairy farmers have experienced
in recent years have driven thousands of farmers out of business
and delayed economic recovery for the few that remain. Given this
urgency, the Committee encourages the Secretary to use all avail-
able resources to help these struggling farmers to diversify, inno-
vate, and reduce risk.
Grain Terminals.—The Committee notes the ongoing contract ne-
gotiations between West Coast grain terminal operators and the
International Longshore and Warehouse Union and recognizes the
importance of reaching an agreement that works for both parties.
A failure to reach an agreement could result in an interruption in
grain terminal service that would negatively impact the Nation’s
grain exports. The Committee urges all parties to continue negoti-
ating in good faith to ensure an equitable outcome for both grain
terminal operators and their workers is expeditiously reached.
Micro-Grants for Food Security.—The Committee urges AMS to
administer the Micro-Grants for Food Security program in a man-
ner that will ensure that low-income, disadvantaged, and minority
individuals are able to submit applications and receive funding for
projects such as animal processing and slaughter facilities, includ-
ing reindeer herders, greenhouses, and hydroponic growing facili-
ties that would increase the amount and quality of locally produced
foods. When practicable, the Committee directs AMS to waive or
amend how it applies the regulatory requirements of 2 CFR
200.206, 200.313, 200.328, and 200.329 to ensure that this program
addresses food insecurity challenges.
National Organic Program.—The Committee provides
$22,000,000 for the National Organic Program [NOP]. A healthy
58
market for organic products requires a clear product distinction
backed by a trusted, verified, and enforced label. The Committee
recognizes that the NOP, which enforces the organic regulations
and ensures they evolve to keep pace with consumer expectations,
is essential. In light of recent reports of inadequate enforcement of
organic standards, the Committee directs USDA to provide all re-
sources needed for the NOP to deliver the strongest possible over-
sight before allowing the USDA organic seal to be granted to do-
mestic and international operations and products, including a con-
tinued focus on proactive risk-based investigations and oversight,
enhanced training for certifiers, and standards development.
Native American Foods and Tourism.—The Committee recog-
nizes that enhanced Native American tourism creates important
job opportunities in Native American communities while show-
casing their heritage, food, traditions, history, and continuing vital-
ity. The Committee encourages USDA to support the Native Amer-
ican Tourism and Improving Visitor Experience Act (Public Law
114–221) by prioritizing projects that market, promote, or expand
Native American foods, markets, and enterprises.
Organic Certification for Wild Seafood.—The Committee is aware
of interest in developing organic production, handling, and labeling
standards for wild caught seafood as provided for in Section 6506
of the Organic Foods Production Act (7 U.S.C. 6506(c)). The Com-
mittee urges USDA to reestablish the Wild Caught Working Group
under the National Organic Standards Board to evaluate wild cap-
ture aquatic animal production systems and assess the feasibility
and appropriateness of developing organic production and handling
standards for their certification.
Organic Dairy.—The Committee recognizes the importance of
consumer confidence in the integrity of the USDA Organic Seal and
notes the work that USDA has done to increase training and cer-
tifier consistency with respect to dairy operations. The Committee
directs AMS to seek strong enforcement of organic dairy production
standards and resolve significant variations in standard interpreta-
tion that exists among organic certifiers, as well as among organic
dairy producers. AMS shall continue to conduct critical risk-based
oversight, particularly for large, complex dairy operations, as it has
in the past three fiscal years.
Organic Data Initiative.—The Committee recognizes that accu-
rate data for the production, pricing, and marketing of organic
products is essential to maintaining stable markets, identifying
fraud, creating risk management tools, tracking production trends,
and increasing exports. Therefore, the Committee directs the Sec-
retary to require mandatory reporting on an annual basis by ac-
credited certifying agents on aggregate production areas certified
by crop and location in order to accurately calculate organic acre-
age and yield estimates on a country-by-country basis. The Com-
mittee provides $1,000,000 for AMS to coordinate with NASS for
activities related to expanding organic price reporting and organic
data collection.
Pricing Concerns.—The Committee recognizes the importance of
ensuring that meat pricing mechanisms are transparent and pro-
vide reliable price discovery for cattle producers and the rest of the
supply chain nationwide. The Committee notes that the Nation’s
59
food supply chain is an issue of national security, and emphasizes
that our farmers, ranchers, processors, and consumers must have
a fair and competitive marketplace. The Committee directs the Sec-
retary, working with the Attorney General as appropriate, to act
expeditiously to analyze these issues and to consider extending the
ongoing investigation to include economic disruptions associated
with public health emergencies.
Soil Health.—The National organic standards require farmers
that voluntarily chose to certify their operation as meeting organic
practices to use farming practices that improve soil health, such as
crop rotations, cover cropping, and pasture-based livestock prac-
tices. By improving soil health, these farming practices also in-
crease the carbon sequestration potential of the soil, and improve
the farm’s resilience to extreme weather events and patterns. To
maximize the climate benefits of organic agriculture, the Com-
mittee urges the National Organic Program to increase enforce-
ment efforts to ensure full compliance with the soil health and pas-
ture requirements of USDA organic standards.
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Limitation, 2021 ..................................................................................... ¥$61,227,000
Budget limitation, 2022 ......................................................................... ¥61,786,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥61,786,000
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97–
35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading and
classing cotton and tobacco. These activities, authorized under the
U.S. Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51 et seq.), the Tobacco In-
spection Act (7 U.S.C. 511 et seq.), and other provisions of law are
designed to facilitate commerce and protect participants in the in-
dustry.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $61,786,000 on ad-
ministrative expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service.
FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY
(SECTION 32)
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. ¥$20,705,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... ¥20,817,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥20,817,000
Under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, (Public Law 74–
320), an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts collected
during each preceding calendar year and unused balances are
available for encouraging the domestic consumption and expor-
tation of agricultural commodities. An amount equal to 30 percent
of receipts collected on fishery products is transferred to the De-
partment of Commerce. Additional transfers to the child nutrition
programs of the Food and Nutrition Service have been provided in
recent appropriations Acts.
60
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds of
$20,817,000 for the formulation and administration of marketing
agreements and orders.
The following table reflects the status of this fund for fiscal years
2021–2022:
ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD—
FISCAL YEARS 2021–2022
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Appropriation (30% of Customs Receipts) ................................... 22,733,332 21,679,260 21,679,260
Less Transfers:
Food and Nutrition Service ................................................... ¥21,040,057 ¥19,961,591 ¥19,961,591
Commerce Department ......................................................... ¥262,275 ¥253,669 ¥253,669
Total, Transfers ................................................................ ¥21,302,332 ¥20,215,260 ¥20,215,260
Budget Authority, Farm Bill ......................................... 1,431,000 1,464,000 1,464,000
Appropriations Temporarily Reduced—Sequestration ................... ¥71,136 ¥72,789 ¥72,789
Budget Authority, Appropriations Act .......................... 1,359,864 1,391,211 1,391,211
Less Obligations:
Child Nutrition Programs (Entitlement Commodities) .......... 485,000 485,000 485,000
State Option Contract ........................................................... 5,000 5,000 5,000
Removal of Defective Commodities ...................................... 2,500 2,500 2,500
Disaster Relief ...................................................................... 5,000 5,000 5,000
Additional Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Purchases ............. 206,000 206,000 206,000
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program ..................................... 183,000 187,000 187,000
Estimated Future Needs ....................................................... 800,425 443,084 443,084
Total, Commodity Procurement ........................................ 1,686,925 1,333,584 1,333,584
Administrative Funds:
Commodity Purchase Support ............................................... 36,746 36,810 36,810
Marketing Agreements and Orders ....................................... 20,705 20,817 20,817
Total, Administrative Funds ............................................. 57,451 57,627 57,627
Total Obligations .............................................................. 1,744,376 1,391,211 1,391,211
Section 32 Authorities.—Under the authority described in clause
3 of 7 U.S.C. 612c, the Secretary is able to direct funds from the
section 32 account to increase the purchasing power of producers.
This practice has been used on various occasions to provide direct
assistance to producers when market forces or natural conditions
adversely affect the financial condition of farmers and ranchers.
The Committee notes the importance of the ability of the Secretary
to utilize this authority but believes that communication between
USDA and Congress should be improved when this practice is
used. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary to provide no-
tification to the Committee in advance of any public announcement
or release of section 32 funds under the specific authorities cited
above.
PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $1,235,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 1,235,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,000,000
61
The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program is author-
ized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7
U.S.C. 1621–1627, 1635–1638) and is also funded from appropria-
tions. Matching grants are awarded on a competitive basis to State
marketing agencies to identify and test market alternative farm
commodities, determine methods of providing more reliable market
information, and develop better commodity grading standards. This
program has made many types of projects possible, such as elec-
tronic marketing and agricultural product diversification. Current
projects are focused on the improvement of marketing efficiency
and effectiveness and seeking new outlets for existing farm pro-
duced commodities. The legislation grants USDA authority to es-
tablish cooperative agreements with State departments of agri-
culture or similar State agencies to improve the efficiency of the
agricultural marketing chain. The States perform the work or con-
tract it to others and must contribute at least one-half of the cost
of the projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,000,000 for
Payments to States and Possessions for Federal-State marketing
projects and activities. The Committee provides an increase of
$2,765,000 to support projects focused on improved production,
processing, marketing, operations, training, and capacity for the
dairy, meat, and poultry sectors.
LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES
Limitation, 2021 ..................................................................................... ¥$55,000,000
Budget limitation, 2022 ......................................................................... ¥55,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥55,000,000
The agency provides an official grain inspection and weighing
system under the U.S. Grain Standards Act [USGSA] (Public Law
64–190, and official inspection of rice and grain-related products
under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621–1627,
1635–1638). The USGSA was amended in 1981 to require the col-
lection of user fees to fund the costs associated with the operation,
supervision, and administration of Federal grain inspection and
weighing activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $55,000,000 on in-
spection and weighing services expenses.
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $809,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 1,327,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,327,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety provides direc-
tion and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted by the Con-
gress with respect to the Department’s inspection of meat, poultry,
and processed egg products. The Office has oversight and manage-
ment responsibilities for the Food Safety and Inspection Service
[FSIS].
62
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,327,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety.
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $1,075,703,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 1,165,589,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,153,064,000
The major objectives of the FSIS are to ensure that meat and
poultry products are wholesome, unadulterated, and properly la-
beled and packaged, as required by the Federal Meat Inspection
Act (Public Law 59–242) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act
(Public Law 85–172), as amended; and to provide continuous in-
plant inspection to egg processing plants under the Egg Products
Inspection Act (Public Law 91–597).
The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on June
17, 1981, by Secretary’s Memorandum No. 1000–1, issued pursuant
to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.
The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection Serv-
ice provides in-plant inspection of all domestic plants preparing
meat, poultry, or egg products for sale or distribution; reviews for-
eign inspection systems and establishments that prepare meat or
poultry products for export to the United States; and provides tech-
nical and financial assistance to States which maintain meat and
poultry inspection programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,153,064,000
for the Food Safety and Inspection Service.
The following table represents the Committee’s specific rec-
ommendations for the FSIS as compared to the fiscal year 2021
and budget request levels:
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Food safety inspection:
Federal .............................................................................................. 957,348 1,046,692 1,034,167
State .................................................................................................. 66,730 66,875 66,875
International ...................................................................................... 17,045 17,442 17,442
PHDCIS .............................................................................................. 34,580 34,580 34,580
Total .............................................................................................. 1,075,703 1,165,589 1,153,064
Cooperative Interstate Shipment Report.—The Committee expects
USDA to deliver the report on the Cooperative Interstate Shipment
[CIS] program as outlined in Section 764(e)(2) of division N of Pub-
lic Law 116–260 no later than December 27, 2021.
Humane Slaughter.—The Committee directs FSIS to continue to
provide annual reports to the Committee on the implementation of
objective scoring methods undertaken by FSIS to enforce the Hu-
mane Methods of Slaughter Act (Public Law 85–765).
63
The Committee also directs FSIS to ensure that personnel hired
with funding previously provided specifically for Humane Methods
of Slaughter Act (Public Law 85–765) enforcement focus their at-
tention on overseeing compliance with humane handling rules for
live animals as they arrive and are offloaded and handled in pens,
chutes, and stunning areas and that all inspectors receive robust
training.
Public Health Veterinarians.—The Committee remains concerned
about persistently high levels of public health veterinary [PHV] va-
cancies within FSIS and provides an increase of $2,800,000 to ad-
dress this issue.
Reduced User Fees.—The Committee provides an increase of
$44,100,000 to continue the reduced user fees for small and very
small establishments as established by the American Rescue Plan
Act of 2021.
TITLE II
FARM PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM PRODUCTION AND
CONSERVATION
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $916,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 1,437,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,687,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm Production and Con-
servation [FPAC] provides direction and coordination in carrying
out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Depart-
ment’s commodity programs, farm loans, disaster assistance, crop
insurance, natural resources conservation and environment pro-
grams, and certain energy programs. The Office has oversight and
management responsibilities for the Farm Service Agency [FSA]
(including the Commodity Credit Corporation), Risk Management
Agency [RMA], and the Natural Resources Conservation Service
[NRCS].
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,687,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm Production and Con-
servation.
Supporting Beginning Farmers and Ranchers.—The Committee
recognizes that the average age of U.S. farmers continues to in-
crease and a majority of the Nation’s farmland will change hands
in the coming years due to the aging farmer population. It is clear
that the ability of the next generation of farmers to produce food
and fiber in a sustainable way is critical to the economy, health,
and security of our Nation and rural communities. In order to ad-
dress this concern, USDA must find new ways to meet the unique
needs and barriers facing beginning farmers and ranchers, espe-
cially diversified operations, minority and indigenous farmers and
ranchers, and returning military veterans. The Committee has
heard repeated complaints that USDA programs, particularly the
direct and guaranteed loan programs and microloans, can be dif-
ficult for small or beginning farmers to apply for. Those challenges
are further exacerbated when local USDA staff lack an under-
standing about non-traditional operations. Therefore the Com-
mittee encourages the Secretary to prioritize training and edu-
cation for State and county FSA, NRCS, and RMA staff on how to
better serve and support young and beginning farmers and ranch-
ers to ensure that they can enter and sustain farming or ranching
as a viable livelihood.
(64)
65
FARM PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION BUSINESS CENTER
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $231,302,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 238,177,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 238,177,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $238,177,000 for
the Farm Production and Conservation Business Center.
Business Center Report.—The FPAC Business Center was created
by the Secretary in 2018 with the goal of consolidating administra-
tive functions within the newly created FPAC mission area, with
assurances given that this would lead to reduced inefficiencies and
increased customer service. However, the Committee is aware of re-
ports of prolonged delays in filling critical that has led to delays
in the deployment of important disaster assistance, conservation,
and commodity programs. The Committee once again reminds
FPAC that the detailed report required by S. Rpt. 116–110, which
was due February 2021, regarding the FPAC Business Center’s ef-
ficiencies gained, metrics, hiring plan, and potential reorganization,
is now long overdue.
Recruitment.—The Committee recognizes the importance of re-
cruiting a diverse and talented workforce at USDA and applauds
the FPAC Business Center and the Natural Resources Conserva-
tion Service for their work to expand their involvement with the
Pathways and 1890s Scholars Program. The two programs not only
help to recruit the next generation of public servants, but also
boost the number of students interested in studying agriculture,
food sciences, natural resource sciences, and other related dis-
ciplines. USDA is encouraged to also seek out additional opportuni-
ties and partnerships with the 1994 Tribal Scholars Program to in-
crease the number of American Indian and Alaska Native students
studying agriculture, food, natural resource sciences, and related
disciplines.
FARM SERVICE AGENCY
The Farm Service Agency was established October 13, 1994, pur-
suant to the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354). The
FSA administers a variety of activities, such as the commodity
price support and production adjustment programs financed by the
Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC]; the Conservation Reserve
Program [CRP]; the Emergency Conservation Program [ECP]; the
Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-raised
Fish Program [ELAP]; the Commodity Operation Programs, includ-
ing the warehouse examination function; farm ownership, farm op-
erating, emergency disaster, and other loan programs; and the
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program [NAP], which pro-
vides crop loss protection for growers of many crops for which crop
insurance is not available. In addition, FSA currently provides cer-
tain administrative support services to the Foreign Agricultural
Service [FAS] and RMA.
66
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
[In thousands of dollars]
Total, FSA,
Transfers from
Appropriations salaries and
program accounts expenses
Appropriations, 2021 ........................................................................... 1,142,924 294,114 1,437,038
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................ 1,175,670 294,114 1,469,784
Committee recommendation ................................................................
I 1,178,324
I 294,114
I 1,472,438
The account Salaries and Expenses, Farm Service Agency, funds
the administrative expenses of program administration and other
functions assigned to FSA. The funds consist of appropriations and
transfers from the CCC export credit guarantees, Food for Peace
loans, and Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund program accounts,
as well as miscellaneous advances from other sources. All adminis-
trative funds used by FSA are consolidated into one account. The
consolidation provides clarity and better management and control
of funds and facilitates accounting, fiscal, and budgetary work by
eliminating the necessity for making individual allocations and al-
lotments and maintaining and recording obligations and expendi-
tures under numerous separate accounts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,472,438,000
for salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency, including a
direct appropriation of $1,178,324,000.
Acequia Irrigated Land.—The Committee recognizes that
acequias serve as the primary method of irrigation in many rural
and underserved communities in New Mexico and that acequias re-
main an integral aspect of New Mexican cultural identity. Recent
changes administered by FSA changed eligibility of drought on
farms and ranches irrigated by acequias for the Noninsured Crop
Disaster Assistance Program [NAP]. Given the Farm Service Agen-
cy has historically considered drought on acequia-irrigated land eli-
gible for Non-insured Crop Disaster Assistance and the ongoing se-
vere drought conditions in New Mexico and throughout the west,
the Committee urges the Department to issue guidance clarifying
that drought on acequia-irrigated land is an eligible cause of loss
for NAP.
Acreage Crop Reporting Streamlining Initiative [ACRSI].—The
Committee recognizes the significant potential of ACRSI to reduce
the time and burden of Federal reporting requirements on farmers.
The Committee notes that ACRSI was designed to allow farmers to
report data electronically and securely with both RMA and FSA to
automatically pre-populate forms, eliminate redundant reporting,
and increase data integrity. However, the Committee recognizes
that USDA’s prioritization of ACRSI has been inadequate. The
Committee reminds USDA that the joint explanatory statement ac-
companying Public Law 116–260 directed FSA to allocate all nec-
essary resources to identify the software options necessary to en-
sure that ACRSI technology is adopted and deployed by the Risk
Management Agency and the Farm Service Agency within 120 days
67
of enactment of the Act. The USDA has failed to respond to the
Committee’s directives, which raises serious questions as to the
commitment and ability to meet this obligation to producers.
Therefore, the Committee directs USDA, within 60 days of enact-
ment, to brief the Committee on the status of implementation of
ACRSI, financial obligations to date, and the costs and actions un-
derway to complete this project in time for the crop reporting cycle
of the year 2022.
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program [CREP].—The Com-
mittee recognizes that drought is now the single largest cause of
U.S. farm production losses and strongly supports the development
of creative solutions to conserve water while maintaining the pro-
ductive use of farmland. The Committee is concerned that the
Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment [PEA] for CRP
published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2019 (84 FR 52868)
ignores the intent of Congress and the urgent threat of drought by
immediately dismissing without meaningful consideration the new
authorization for CREP drought and water conservation agree-
ments to permit dryland agricultural uses with the adoption of best
management practices. The Committee directs the Secretary to re-
vise the PEA to allow dryland agriculture uses on land enrolled in
CREP in accordance with section 1231A(e)(2) of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831a(e)(2)). The Committee reminds USDA
that the joint explanatory statement accompanying Public Law
116–260 directed the Secretary to submit a report to the Com-
mittee detailing a full analysis of the new CREP dryland agricul-
tural uses authority and what dryland farming best management
practices could make advancements to protect ground water and
surface water quality and control soil erosion while enhancing wild-
life habitat.
Continuous Conservation Reserve Program.—The Secretary is
strongly encouraged, within the total acreage made available for
enrollment in the conservation reserve program and without reduc-
ing the periodic availability of general signup, to enroll, to the max-
imum extent practicable, acreage for activities included in the
State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement practice or other similar ad-
ministratively established wetland and habitat practices that ben-
efit priority fish and wildlife species identified in State, regional,
and national conservation initiatives, prioritizing initiatives that
provide large blocks of cover ideal for wildlife nesting.
ELAP Farm-Raised Fish Assistance.—The Committee remains
concerned about the economic impacts of avian predation and dis-
ease on the U.S. aquaculture industry and the lack of meaningful
protections for producers against these losses. The Committee re-
minds USDA that the joint explanatory statement accompanying
the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law
116–94) directed FSA to amend the existing regulations under 7
C.F.R. 1416 to ensure producers of farm-raised fish intended for
human consumption are eligible to receive payments for death
losses due to disease or avian predation within 180 days of enact-
ment of that Act. The Committee expects FSA to carry out this con-
gressional directive.
Heirs Property.—The Committee is disappointed that FSA has
yet to issue a rulemaking for the Heirs’ Property Relending Pro-
68
gram, despite the program’s authorization over two and a half
years ago and having received funds in both Fiscal Year 2021 and
2020. FSA is urged to complete this rulemaking as soon as possible
to help resolve ownership and succession on farmland with mul-
tiple owners.
Honey Bee Loses.—For purposes of administering the Emergency
Livestock Assistance Program [ELAP] for honeybees, the Secretary
is directed to restore normal mortality rates under the program to
fifteen percent and to restore fair market values for colonies and
hives to at least the levels utilized in the 2019 program year, $140
and $258 respectively. This program is essential to protecting a
fragile beekeeping industry that is responsible for pollinating bil-
lions of dollars in U.S. agricultural input.
Inaccurate Estimates.—The Committee reminds USDA that the
joint explanatory statement accompanying Public Law 116–260 di-
rected FSA to submit a report on how it will resolve inconsistencies
in supplying Congress with estimates on funding available for the
National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program [OCCSP] and
other Farm Bill programs. The Committee is pleased by initial an-
nouncements by USDA that it intends to provide assistance to pro-
ducers who rely on OCCSP and those transitioning to organic. This
is especially important for small and midsized organic farmers, un-
derserved farmers, and those just beginning the organic certifi-
cation process.
Information Technology.—The Committee remains dedicated to
ensuring FSA has reliable and functioning IT systems because it
is critical that farmers and ranchers have access to the tools they
need to succeed. The Committee has invested significant taxpayer
dollars to modernize outdated systems and continues to provide re-
sources above the budget request. The Committee continues statu-
tory language that allows funds for IT to be obligated only after the
Secretary meets certain reporting requirements. The Committee
has reviewed the third-party IT analysis and expects the agency to
follow the recommendations where applicable. FSA is directed to
provide timely updates for future IT needs.
Panther Depredation.—The Committee is aware that livestock
producers in Florida have suffered from panther depredation. To
support the ongoing conservation and recovery of endangered Flor-
ida panthers while minimizing conflicts with ranchers, the Com-
mittee encourages FSA to work with ranchers to tailor the Live-
stock Indemnity Program to address unique circumstances cur-
rently preventing producers from receiving compensation for losses
stemming from Florida panther depredation events.
STATE MEDIATION GRANTS
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $6,914,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 6,914,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,000,000
This program is authorized under title V of the Agricultural
Credit Act of 1987 (Public Law 100–233). Originally designed to ad-
dress agricultural credit disputes, the program was expanded by
the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354) to include other
agricultural issues such as wetland determinations, conservation
69
compliance, rural water loan programs, grazing on National Forest
System lands, and pesticides. Grants are made to States whose me-
diation programs have been certified by the FSA. Grants will be
solely for operation and administration of the State’s agricultural
mediation program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,000,000 for
State Mediation Grants.
Obligation Delays.—The Committee is disappointed and per-
plexed by the repeated annual delays by the Department for
issuing grants for this program. These funding delays have re-
sulted in some State mediation programs operating for the first
quarter of the fiscal year without any funding, which has forced
them to turn down new requests for mediation or to stop paying
staff. The Committee remains concerned by these unnecessary
delays and directs USDA to obligate available funds within 30 days
of enactment of this act.
GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $6,500,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 6,500,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,500,000
This program is intended to assist in the protection of ground-
water through State rural water associations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,500,000 for
Grassroots Source Water Protection.
DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $500,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 500,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 500,000
Under the program, the Department makes indemnification pay-
ments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products who,
through no fault of their own, suffer income losses because they are
directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due to con-
tamination of their products by registered pesticides. The program
also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers for losses re-
sulting from the removal of cows or dairy products from the market
due to nuclear radiation or fallout.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2022 to be $500,000, for
indemnity payments to dairy farmers.
PFAS Contamination.—The Committee is aware that a small
number of dairy farms are unable to sell their milk as a result of
contamination from a family of synthetic chemicals, known as
perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, collectively known as
70
‘‘PFAS’’ chemicals. The Committee remains concerned that USDA’s
own research has shown that PFAS residues remain detectable in
contaminated livestock even after an extended withdrawal period,
which could result in potential human exposure. Therefore, the
Secretary shall utilize the Dairy Indemnity Payment Program to
purchase and remove PFAS contaminated cows from the market,
rather than paying for prolonged monthly production indemnities.
The Secretary shall utilize the established, applicable Livestock In-
demnity Program average fair market value price to compensate
for PFAS contaminated cows at affected dairies. The Committee
further notes that the joint explanatory statement accompanying
Public Law 116–260 directed USDA to take such actions and the
Secretary has yet to issue guidance or carry out the removal of con-
taminated cows.
GEOGRAPHICALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS AND RANCHERS
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. 1 $2,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... ...........................
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,000,000
1 Included in a General Provision in fiscal year 2021
This program is authorized under Title I of the Food, Conserva-
tion, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8792). Under the Reim-
bursement Transportation Cost Payment Program for Geographi-
cally Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers, the Department off-
sets a portion of the costs of transporting agricultural inputs and
products over long distances for farmers and ranchers outside the
contiguous United States that face tremendously high costs for
transporting agriculture products and inputs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,000,000 for
the Reimbursement Transportation Cost Payment Program for
Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers. This in-
cludes an increase of $1,000,000 from the funding provided in a
General Provision for the last several years in order to increase the
cap on payments per producers that was has remained unchanged
since it was first established in 2010 to ensure a fair and reason-
able distribution of funds.
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account [ACIF]
is used to provide direct and guaranteed farm ownership, farm op-
erating, conservation, Indian highly fractioned land, and emergency
loans to individuals, as well as the following types of loans to asso-
ciations: irrigation and drainage, grazing, Indian Tribe land acqui-
sition, and boll weevil eradication.
FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to bor-
rowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having a
contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary of
Agriculture and to establish Beginning Farmer and Rancher Indi-
vidual Development grant accounts.
The following programs are financed through this fund:
71
Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.—Made to assist foundations in fi-
nancing the operations of the boll weevil eradication programs pro-
vided to farmers.
Credit Sales of Acquired Property.—Property is sold out of inven-
tory and is made available to an eligible buyer by providing FSA
loans.
Emergency Loans.—Made to producers to aid recovery from pro-
duction and physical losses due to drought, flooding, other natural
disasters, or quarantine. The loans may be used to restore or re-
place essential property; pay all or part of production costs associ-
ated with the disaster year; pay essential family living expenses;
reorganize the farming operation; and refinance certain debts.
Farm Operating Loans.—Provide short-to-intermediate term pro-
duction or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain credit else-
where, to improve their farm and home operations, and to develop
or maintain a reasonable standard of living. The term of the loan
varies from one to 7 years.
Farm Ownership Loans.—Made to borrowers who cannot obtain
credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or purchase
farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement but do not
supplant farm income, or make additions to farms. Loans are made
for 40 years or less.
Heirs’ Property Relending Program.—Provide revolving loan
funds to eligible intermediary lenders to resolve ownership and
complete a succession plan on farmland that has multiple owners.
The lenders will provide loans to qualified individuals to resolve
these ownership issues and ensure fair access to land for farmers,
ranchers, and future generations.
Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.—Made to any Indian Tribe
recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or Tribal corporation es-
tablished pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act (Public Law
93–638) which does not have adequate uncommitted funds to ac-
quire lands or interest in lands within the Tribe’s reservation or
Alaskan Indian community, as determined by the Secretary of the
Interior, for use of the Tribe or the corporation or the members
thereof.
Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans.—Made to Indian Tribal
members to purchase highly fractionated lands, as authorized by
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–
234).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a total loan level of $10,385,908,000
for programs within the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Pro-
gram Account.
Loan Programs.—The Committee continues to support FSA loan
programs that ensure farmers and ranchers have access to credit
to maintain and improve their operations. The Committee is aware
of the heightened operating loan activity in fiscal year 2021 and
notes the statutory authority allowing program level increases that
do not require additional budget authority. The Committee will
continue to monitor program demand in the coming months and di-
rects FSA to provide timely estimates for future needs.
72
The following table reflects the program levels for farm credit
programs administered by the Farm Service Agency recommended
by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year 2021 and the
budget request levels:
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS—LOAN LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Farm Ownership:
Direct ........................................................................................... 2,500,000 2,800,000 2,800,000
Guaranteed .................................................................................. 3,300,000 3,500,000 3,500,000
Farm Operating:
Direct ........................................................................................... 1,633,333 1,633,333 1,633,333
Guaranteed unsubsidized ........................................................... 2,118,482 2,118,482 2,118,482
Emergency Loans ................................................................................. 37,668 37,668 37,668
Indian Tribe Land Acquisition ............................................................. 20,000 20,000 20,000
Conservation Loans:
Guaranteed .................................................................................. 150,000 150,000 150,000
Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans .............................................. 5,000 5,000 5,000
Boll Weevil Eradication ........................................................................ 60,000 60,000 60,000
Relending Program .............................................................................. 33,693 33,693 61,425
Total, Loan Authorizations ...................................................... 9,858,176 10,358,176 10,385,908
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–508) es-
tablished the program account. Appropriations to this account are
used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed, as well as for ad-
ministrative expenses.
The following table reflects the cost of programs under credit re-
form:
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Farm Operating:
Direct ........................................................................................... 38,710 40,017 40,017
Guaranteed unsubsidized ........................................................... 23,727 16,524 16,524
Emergency Loans ................................................................................. 207 267 267
Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans .............................................. 742 407 407
Relending Program .............................................................................. 5,000 2,743 5,000
Total, Loan Subsidies ............................................................. 68,386 59,958 62,215
ACIF Expenses:
Salaries and Expenses ................................................................ 294,114 294,114 294,114
Administrative Expenses ............................................................. 13,230 20,658 20,658
Total, ACIF Expenses .............................................................. 307,344 314,772 314,772
RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $60,131,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 69,207,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 67,700,000
The Risk Management Agency performs administrative functions
relative to the Federal Crop Insurance program that is authorized
73
by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508), as amended by
the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 [ARPA] (Public Law
106–224), the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–79), and
the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–334).
ARPA authorized significant changes in the crop insurance pro-
gram. This Act provides higher government subsidies for producer
premiums to make coverage more affordable; expands research and
development for new insurance products and under-served areas
through contracts with the private sector; and strengthens compli-
ance. Functional areas of risk management are: research and de-
velopment; insurance services; and compliance, the functions of
which include policy formulation and procedures and regulations
development.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $67,700,000 for
Risk Management Agency, Salaries and Expenses.
The Committee recognizes that there are many research prior-
ities that competitive funding may be used to address, including
the feasibility of insurance programs to cover business interruption
due to integrator bankruptcy and catastrophic loss in the poultry
industry. The Committee encourages RMA to support research into
these priorities.
Corn Test Weight.—The Committee is aware of concerns over
whether discount tables used by FSA and RMA accurately reflect
market conditions. The Committee directs the agency, in consulta-
tion with relevant stakeholders, to study and update corn test
weight discount tables to improve the accuracy of these discount
factors.
Haying and Grazing of Cover Crops.—The Committee recognizes
and applauds the Department’s recent efforts to provide flexibility
to producers wishing to hay or graze cover crops on prevented
planting acreage before November 1. This is an important step for-
ward to ensure that producers planting decisions are based on
sound agriculture practices, while also promoting smart agricul-
tural practices that build soil health and resilience in our working
lands.
Improved Producer Education.—The Committee recognizes that
crop insurance is a vital public-private partnership and is the first
line of defense for effectively managing risk for many farmers.
However, the Committee believes that additional education is need-
ed through the use of clear, comparative, and easy to understand
information on the costs of selected crop insurance policies, the pro-
ducer premium, and the Federal premium subsidy. Therefore, the
Committee directs the Secretary to work with crop insurance pro-
viders and agents to ensure that all farmers have access to that
cost information on their policies in a transparent and easy to un-
derstand manner.
Whole-Farm Revenue Protection.—The Committee remind USDA
that the joint explanatory statement accompanying Public Law
116–260 directed RMA to submit a report on the steps being taken
by the Board of Directors of the Federal Crop Insurance Corpora-
tion to consider the feasibility of the proposed change to recognize
74
the difference in perils at different phases of growth for aqua-
culture species.
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
The Natural Resources Conservation Service was established
pursuant to the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of
1994 (Public Law 103–354). The NRCS works with conservation
districts, watershed groups, and Federal and State agencies to
bring about physical adjustments in land use that will conserve soil
and water resources, provide for agricultural production on a sus-
tained basis, and reduce flood damage and sedimentation.
CONSERVATION OPERATIONS
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $832,727,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 886,285,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 937,964,000
Conservation operations are authorized by Public Law 74–46 (16
U.S.C. 590a–590f). Activities include:
Conservation Technical Assistance provides assistance to district
cooperators and other land users in the planning and application
of conservation treatments to control erosion and improve the
quantity and quality of soil resources; improve and conserve water;
enhance fish and wildlife habitat; conserve energy; improve wood-
land, pasture, and range conditions; and reduce upstream flooding
to protect and enhance the natural resource base.
Resource appraisal and program development ensures that pro-
grams administered by the Secretary for the conservation of soil,
water, and related resources shall respond to the Nation’s long-
term needs.
Plant Materials Centers assemble, test, and encourage increased
use of plant species which show promise for use in the treatment
of conservation problem areas.
Snow Survey and Water Forecasting provides estimates of an-
nual water availability from high mountain snow packs and sum-
mer stream flow in the Western States and Alaska. Information is
used by agriculture, industry, and cities in estimating future water
supplies.
Soil Surveys inventory the Nation’s basic soil resources and de-
termine land capabilities and conservation treatment needs. Soil
survey publications include interpretations useful to cooperators,
other Federal and State agencies, and local organizations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $937,964,000 for
Conservation Operations. The Committee provides $84,500,000 for
Soil Surveys, $16,500,000 for Snow Survey and Water Forecasting,
$9,540,000 for Plant Materials Centers, and $784,813,000 for Con-
servation Technical Assistance, of which $3,000,000 is for soil test-
ing and remediation, $8,000,000 is for climate hubs, $12,000,000 is
for climate smart agriculture, and $20,000,000 is for the Grazing
Lands Conservation Initiative (16 U.S.C. 3839bb). The Committee
also provides $15,000,000 for the National Fish and Wildlife Foun-
dation to establish a Working Land Resilience Program and
75
$8,000,000 for the Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production
Program. The Committee provides $19,611,000 for congressionally
directed projects, as specified in the table at the end of the report,
for new and ongoing conservation activities. Amounts rec-
ommended by the Committee for specific conservation measures
shall be in addition to levels otherwise made available to States.
Acre-for-Acre Wetlands Mitigation.—The Secretary is encouraged
to use mitigation with the conversion of a natural wetland and
equivalent wetlands functions at a ratio which does not exceed 1-
to-1 acreage.
Conservation Operations.—In carrying out projects on public
lands that would directly or indirectly prevent, prepare for, or re-
spond to economic, environmental, or public health consequences
resulting from climate change, the Secretary shall, to the max-
imum extent practicable, seek out ways to utilize qualified youth
or conservation corps, as defined in section 203(11) of the Public
Lands Corps Act of 1993 (16 U.S.C. 1722(11), non-profit wilderness
and trails stewardship organizations, and consult with public lands
stewardship organizations for the purpose of identifying appro-
priate projects, activities, and workforce development outcomes.
Congressionally Directed Spending [CDS].—The Committee has
provided CDS for certain activities and locations under Conserva-
tion Operations. While the Committee has provided the funding, re-
cipients of CDS are still required to apply for the funding and must
meet all statutory and regulatory requirements. The Committee ex-
pects the agency to review the applications and fund projects in the
same manner as in previous years.
Critical Conservation Areas [CCA].—The Committee supports
CCAs and the collaborative regional approach to address common
natural resources goals while maintaining or improving agricul-
tural productivity. The Committee urges NRCS to provide suffi-
cient Conservation Technical Assistance funds to CCAs to address
conservation planning backlogs. The Committee also encourages
NRCS to leverage all possible resources to identify nutrient loss
and reduce runoff to achieve the goals of the 2015 Gulf Hypoxia Ac-
tion Plan.
Drought Resilience.—The Committee is particularly concerned
about the severe and prolonged drought in the West and applauds
the passage of the Colorado River Basin Drought Contingency
Plans. The Committee appreciates NRCS’s efforts to increase effi-
ciencies in current water use and expects NRCS to utilize all avail-
able opportunities to assist producers, irrigators, and irrigation dis-
tricts in implementing area-wide plans to address drought resil-
iency and mitigation in a way that maintains strong rural and ag-
riculture communities and protects our natural resources. In pro-
viding this assistance, the Committee further expects NRCS to
prioritize support for implementation of Drought Contingency
Plans, agreements, or programs that would conserve surface or
ground water, improve drought resiliency, and address current and
anticipated conservation needs and severe drought-related resource
concerns.
Energy Efficiency Opportunities.—The Environmental Quality In-
centive Program [EQIP] is an important tool to help farmers con-
serve energy, conduct energy audits, and develop conservation
76
plans through locally based technical service providers. The Com-
mittee is concerned that very few farmers who complete energy au-
dits are able to actually utilize EQIP or other Federal programs to
help them adopt much-needed energy efficiency measures to reduce
their high energy expenses. The Secretary is urged to seek out and
implement opportunities to encourage and support farmers to im-
plement energy efficiency projects.
Feral Hogs.—The Committee is concerned that the feral hog pop-
ulation is rapidly expanding despite efforts to constrain their
spread. To help prevent further damages to agriculture and urban
lands, the Committee encourages NRCS to use available funds for
a cost-share program for the construction and repair of perimeter
fencing. The Committee directs NRCS, in conjunction with State
soil and water conservation boards and agencies, to develop a strat-
egy to exclude feral hogs from agricultural and urban areas at risk
of damage from localized feral hog populations.
Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative.—The Committee provides
$20,000,000 for the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (16
U.S.C. 3839bb), of which at least $16,000,000 shall be provided
through State allocations as competitive grants to diverse partner-
ships, including socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers and
their organizations, to provide technical assistance to producers for
grazing planning and implementation, conferences and other edu-
cation, demonstrations, producer networks, workforce training, re-
search, and outreach projects to improve agricultural resilience.
NRCS is directed to provide at least $2,000,000 through a coopera-
tive agreement with a national grazing lands conservation coalition
to establish diverse State-based coalitions and to undertake grazing
education.
Innovative Water Conservation.—The Committee recognizes the
devastating impacts wrought by severe and prolonged drought
across many regions of the country. The Committee notes that the
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–334) made
several updates to address water conservation and drought mitiga-
tion, including eligibility changes for water conservation and irriga-
tion efficiency practices. NRCS is encouraged to work with eligible
entities, including but not limited to producers, States, irrigation
districts, and acequias, to help implement critical innovative
drought resiliency and mitigation efforts, which maintain strong
rural and agriculture communities while protecting natural re-
sources.
Land Grants and Acequias.—The Committee recognizes that Sec-
tion 2304(e) of Public Law 115–334 allows acequias and land grant
mercedes to apply directly to the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program [EQIP], which provides Federal funding and technical as-
sistance to farmers throughout the Nation. The Committee appre-
ciates that there are hundreds of acequias and dozens of land
grants in New Mexico that can now gain direct access to this im-
portant conservation program. The Committee urges USDA to de-
velop EQIP guidance that ensures timely input from local commu-
nities, including listening sessions with land grants and acequias.
Private Land Conservation.—The Committee recognizes the im-
portance of providing private land owners with ready access to the
many Federal, State, and local government and private resources
77
available to support conservation efforts on private lands. The
Committee directs NRCS to implement a multi-year cooperative
agreement with appropriate funding support to an organization
that can make conservation solutions and best practices accessible
daily to private land owners. This organization should also support
efforts to conserve the lesser-prairie chicken and implement carbon
sequestration conservation programs nationwide.
Soil Health.—The Committee recognizes that improving soil
health on agricultural lands is key to achieving both meaningful
conservation and economic benefits for producers. The Committee
is pleased to see strong stakeholder interest in the new on-farm
conservation innovation trials to test new or innovative conserva-
tion approaches and the soil health demonstration trial, which pro-
vides incentives to producers to implement practices that improve
soil health and increase carbon levels in the soil. The Committee
encourages the Secretary to dedicate more technical assistance
funds to establish standard protocols for measuring and testing
carbon levels to evaluate gains in soil health that will help pro-
ducers to create positive economic, environmental, and social out-
comes through ecosystem service markets. The Committee believes
the Secretary should provide additional technical assistance related
to healthy soil planning, soil carbon sequestration, and conserva-
tion activity planning. NRCS is urged to support the expansion of
existing State soil health programs and to assist interested states
in establishing new State soil health programs.
Technical Assistance.—The Committee directs NRCS to maintain
a record of total technical assistance dollars for the past 3 years
and annually in the future and to provide the data to the Appro-
priations Subcommittee on Agriculture and the Committee on Agri-
culture Nutrition and Forestry. This report should differentiate be-
tween mandatory and discretionary allocations.
Technical Service Providers.—The Committee urges NRCS to re-
evaluate the current matching requirements for the Technical
Service Provider program supporting State and Tribal soil health
programs.
Working Land Resilience Program.—The Committee provides
$15,000,000 for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation [NFWF]
to establish a Working Land Resilience Program that will collabo-
rate with NRCS to offer technical and financial assistance to farm-
ers, ranchers, and non-industrial private forestland owners to
adopt voluntary practices that can restore and increase the resil-
iency of natural ecosystems and protect rural communities from fu-
ture adverse weather events. The Committee believes that clear in-
centives are needed to encourage landowners to adopt more nature-
based infrastructure and to increase the usage of agricultural resil-
ience practices for drought, flood, and fire prone communities, and
that this new program will help to address the current gaps that
exist with the mandatory Farm Bill conservation programs. The
Working Land Resilience Program shall be implemented in accord-
ance with the authorization for NFWF, which requires that Federal
funds be matched on at least a one-for-one basis, and the program
will help to implement a wide range of soil health practices, stra-
tegic agricultural drainage management, wetlands, rotational graz-
78
ing, buffers, and other related management projects to help keep
working lands working.
Working Lands for Wildlife.—The Committee recognizes the role
of the Working Lands for Wildlife model in conservation efforts to
enhance both wildlife habitat and productivity on working land-
scapes. In addition, the Committee is worried about the concerning
population figures for the lesser prairie-chicken and the need to
protect its habitat, particularly in times of drought. NRCS is di-
rected to make every effort to strengthen and expand the work of
the Working Lands for Wildlife model and the Lesser Prairie-
Chicken Initiative.
WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $175,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 175,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 198,275,000
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law
83–566) (16 U.S.C. 1000–1005, 1007–1009) provides for cooperation
between the Federal Government and the States and their political
subdivisions in a program to prevent erosion, floodwater, and sedi-
ment damages in the watersheds or rivers and streams and to fur-
ther the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of
water and the conservation and proper utilization of land in au-
thorized watersheds.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $198,275,000 for
the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program [WFPO],
of which the Committee provides $23,275,000 for congressionally
directed projects, as specified in the table at the end of the report,
for new and ongoing watershed and flood prevention activities.
The Committee recognizes the critical challenges facing rural
water resource management and protection and supports needed
investments in watershed operations. These Federal-State-local
partnerships are uniquely positioned to identify critical watershed
protection and flood prevention needs in rural communities and im-
plement projects that deliver multiple streams of benefits for
homes, businesses, transportation infrastructure, and natural re-
sources. In selecting projects for funding, the Committee expects
the agency to balance the needs of addressing the project backlog,
remediation of existing structures, and new projects.
Congressionally Directed Spending [CDS].—The Committee has
provided CDS for certain activities and locations under Watershed
and Flood Prevention Oeprations. While the Committee has pro-
vided the funding, recipients of CDS are still required to apply for
the funding and must meet all statutory and regulatory require-
ments. The Committee expects the agency to review the applica-
tions and fund projects in the same manner as in previous years.
Technical Assistance Flexibility.—The Committee directs the Sec-
retary to provide greater flexibility to State Conservationists to be
able to utilize technical assistance dedicated for certain WFPO
funds for administration and planning Statewide for all WFPO
projects.
79
WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 10,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,000,000
The Watershed Rehabilitation Program account provides for
technical and financial assistance to carry out rehabilitation of
structural measures, in accordance with section 14 of the Water-
shed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, approved August 4, 1954
(16 U.S.C. 1012, U.S.C. 1001, et seq.), as amended by section 313
of Public Law 106–472, November 9, 2000, and by section 2803 of
Public Law 110–246.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000 for
the Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
The Committee recognizes the large backlog of community infra-
structure projects eligible for financial and technical assistance
from the Watershed Rehabilitation Program to address safety con-
cerns, public health, and environmental impacts of aging dams.
NRCS is urged to prioritize the rehabilitation of dams that pose the
greatest risk to public safety.
CORPORATIONS
FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FUND
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $8,748,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 9,660,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,660,000,000
The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal
Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354), author-
izes the payment of expenses, which may include indemnity pay-
ments; loss adjustment; delivery expenses; program-related re-
search and development; startup costs for implementing this legis-
lation, such as studies, pilot projects, data processing improve-
ments, and public outreach; and related tasks and functions.
All program costs, except for Federal salaries and expenses, are
mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary, estimated to be $9,660,000,000 in fiscal year
2022, for the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund.
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUND
The Commodity Credit Corporation is a wholly owned Govern-
ment corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support, and protect
farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced and adequate
supplies of agricultural commodities, including products, foods,
feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly distribution of these
commodities. CCC was originally incorporated under a Delaware
charter and was reincorporated June 30, 1948, as a Federal cor-
80
poration within USDA by the Commodity Credit Corporation Char-
ter Act (Public Law 80–806), approved June 29, 1948.
The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying, selling,
lending, and other activities with respect to agricultural commod-
ities, their products, food, feed, and fibers. Its purposes include sta-
bilizing, supporting, and protecting farm income and prices; main-
taining the balance and adequate supplies of selected commodities;
and facilitating the orderly distribution of such commodities. In ad-
dition, the Corporation makes available materials and facilities re-
quired in connection with the storage and distribution of such com-
modities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing of costs
with producers for the establishment of approved conservation
practices on environmentally sensitive land and subsequent rental
payments for such land for the duration of CRP contracts.
Corporation activities are primarily governed by the following
statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (Public
Law 80–806), as amended; the Agricultural Act of 1949 (Public Law
81–439), as amended (1949 Act); the Agricultural Adjustment Act
of 1938 (Public Law 75–430), as amended (the 1938 Act); the Food
Security Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–198), as amended (1985 Act);
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–
246); the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–79); and the Ag-
riculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–334).
Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of directors,
subject to the general supervision and direction of the Secretary of
Agriculture, who is an ex officio director and chairman of the
board. The board consists of seven members, in addition to the Sec-
retary, who are appointed by the President of the United States
with the advice and consent of the Senate. Officers of the Corpora-
tion are designated according to their positions in USDA.
The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by the
personnel and through FSA facilities and FSA State and county
committees. The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales
Manager, other agencies and offices of the Department, and com-
mercial agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of the Cor-
poration’s activities.
Under Public Law 87–155 (15 U.S.C. 713a–11, 713a–12), annual
appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year, commencing
with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to reimburse the
Corporation for net realized losses.
REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $31,830,731,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 25,915,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,915,000,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2022 to be
$25,915,000,000, for the payment to reimburse the Commodity
Credit Corporation for reimbursement for net realized losses.
81
CRP Wetland Restoration and Wildlife Enhancement.—The Com-
mittee notes that agricultural commodity crops, if left unharvested,
may help reduce degradation of wetlands and improve sediment
trapping, surface and ground water supply, erosion control, and
wildlife habitat while providing winter food for waterfowl and other
wildlife. The Committee directs CCC, within 60 days of enactment
of this Act, to amend its program policies and guidelines for CRP
conservation practices CP23 and CP23A, to provide that current
and future participants are permitted to plant, but not harvest, ag-
ricultural commodity crops as wildlife food plots on up to 10 per-
cent of the enrolled land to enhance waterfowl and upland bird
food and habitat.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
(LIMITATION ON EXPENSES)
Limitation, 2021 ..................................................................................... ¥$15,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... ¥15,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥15,000,000
The CCC’s hazardous waste management program is intended to
ensure compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (Public Law 96–510) and
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Public Law 94–580).
The CCC funds operations and maintenance costs as well as site
investigation and cleanup expenses. Investigative and cleanup costs
associated with the management of CCC hazardous waste are also
paid from USDA’s hazardous waste management appropriation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $15,000,000 for the
Commodity Credit Corporation’s hazardous waste management
program.
TITLE III
RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agri-
culture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354) abolished
the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development Adminis-
tration, and Rural Electrification Administration and replaced
those agencies with the Rural Housing and Community Develop-
ment Service, (currently, the Rural Housing Service), Rural Busi-
ness and Cooperative Development Service (currently, the Rural
Business-Cooperative Service), and Rural Utilities Service and
placed them under the oversight of the Under Secretary for Rural
Economic and Community Development, (currently, Rural Develop-
ment [RD]). These agencies deliver a variety of programs through
a network of State and field offices.
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $812,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 1,330,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,580,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development pro-
vides direction and coordination in carrying out laws with respect
to the Department’s rural economic and community development
activities. The Office has oversight and management responsibil-
ities for the Rural Housing Service [RHS], Rural Business-Coopera-
tive Service [RBS], and the Rural Utilities Service [RUS].
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,580,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development.
Persistent Poverty Areas.—The Committee supports targeted in-
vestments in impoverished areas, particularly in persistent poverty
counties, and directs the Department to complete the report re-
quested on this matter.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Appropriation ........................................................................................ 264,024 367,447 363,922
Transfer from:
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account ............. 412,254 412,254 412,254
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Program Ac-
count ....................................................................................... I 33,270 I 33,270 I 33,270
(82)
83
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Rural Development Loan Program Account ................................ 4,468 4,468 4,468
Total, Rural Development salaries and expenses ..................
I 714,016
I 817,439
I 813,914
These funds are used to administer the loan and grant programs
of RHS, RBS, and RUS, including reviewing applications, making
and collecting loans, providing technical assistance and guidance to
borrowers, and assisting in extending other Federal programs to
people in rural areas.
Under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–
508), administrative costs associated with loan programs are appro-
priated to the program accounts. Appropriations to the salaries and
expenses account will be for costs associated with grant programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $813,914,000 for salaries and ex-
penses of Rural Development, including a direct appropriation of
$363,922,000.
Collaboration with the Office of Tribal Relations.—The Com-
mittee recognizes the difficulty that federally-recognized Tribes ex-
perience when applying for Rural Development loan and grant pro-
grams. The Committee directs Rural Development to collaborate
with the Office of Tribal Relations to improve outreach and tech-
nical assistance to Tribes to improve their ability to apply to pro-
grams.
Information Technology.—The Committee remains concerned
about IT systems within Rural Development and provides an in-
crease of $16,410,000 to continue making improvements and retir-
ing legacy systems. The Committee directs the Department to pro-
vide a detailed IT spend plan for Rural Development and brief the
Committees on Appropriations within 45 days of the enactment of
this Act.
Staffing Increases.—The Committee provides $38,600,000 to hire
additional staff for the mission area. The Committee directs the
Department to use a portion of this increase to hire additional staff
to support the Tribal Liaison within the Rural Development Inno-
vation Center.
StrikeForce Initiative.—The Committee provides $32,000,000 for
the StrikeForce Initiative and directs the Secretary to submit a re-
port that includes key performance measures to evaluate the suc-
cess of this new initiative within 90 days of enactment of this Act.
RURAL HOUSING SERVICE
The Rural Housing Service was established under the Federal
Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganiza-
tion Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354).
84
RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2021 (budget authority) ............................................. $80,020,000
Budget estimate, 2022 (budget authority) ........................................... 77,052,000
Committee recommendation (budget authority) ................................. 77,051,000
This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89–117) pursuant
to section 517 of title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (Public Law 87–
171). This fund may be used to insure or guarantee rural housing
loans for single-family homes, rental and cooperative housing, farm
labor housing, and rural housing sites. Rural housing loans are
made to construct, improve, alter, repair, or replace dwellings and
essential farm service buildings that are modest in size, design,
and cost. Rental housing insured loans are made to individuals,
corporations, associations, trusts, or partnerships to provide low-
cost rental housing and related facilities in rural areas. These loans
are repayable in terms up to 30 years. The Multi-family Housing
Preservation and Revitalization Program [MPR] includes revitaliza-
tion tools for maintenance of existing units. The Federal Credit Re-
form Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–508) established the Rural Hous-
ing Insurance Fund [RHIF] program account. Appropriations to
this account will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associ-
ated with the direct loans obligated and loan guarantees committed
in fiscal year 2022, as well as for administrative expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $77,051,000 for
the Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account.
The following table presents the loan subsidy levels as compared
to the 2021 levels and the 2022 budget request:
RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Loan Levels:
Single-Family Housing (sec. 502):
Direct .................................................................................. 1,000,000 1,500,000 1,250,000
Guaranteed ......................................................................... 24,000,000 30,000,000 30,000,000
Housing repair (sec. 504) ........................................................... 28,000 28,000 28,000
Direct rental housing (sec. 515) ................................................ 40,000 40,000 92,000
Guaranteed rental housing (sec. 538) ....................................... 230,000 230,000 250,000
Site development loans (sec. 524) ............................................. 5,000 5,000 5,000
Credit sales of acquired property ............................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000
Self help land development loans (sec. 523) ............................ 5,000 5,000 5,000
Farm labor housing loans (sec. 514) ......................................... 28,000 28,000 28,000
Total, loan levels .................................................................... 25,374,000 31,878,000 31,700,000
Loan Subsidies and Grants:
Single–Family Housing (sec. 502):
Direct .................................................................................. 55,400 27,900 23,250
Housing repair (sec. 504) ........................................................... 2,215 484 484
Direct rental housing (sec. 515) ................................................ 6,688 3,576 8,225
Site development loans (sec. 524) ............................................. 355 206 206
Self help land development loans (sec. 523) ............................ 269 55 55
Farm labor housing loans (sec. 514) ......................................... 5,093 2,831 2,831
Farm labor housing grants (sec. 516) ....................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000
85
RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Multi-Family housing revitalization demonstration 1 .................. 28,000 32,000 32,000
Total, loan subsidies and grants ........................................... 80,020 77,052 77,051
Administrative Expenses ...................................................................... 412,254 412,254 412,254
Total, loan subsidies and administrative expenses .............. 492,274 489,306 489,305
1 For fiscal year 2021, the Multi-Family Revitalization Demonstration is funded under the Multi-Family Revitalization Account, which is has
been renamed to the Rural Housing Voucher Account in this bill.
Multi-Family Housing Revitalization Demonstration [MPR].—The
Committee accepts the Department’s proposal to realign the MPR
program under the RHIF account.
Relending Program.—The Committee applauds the initial success
of the Single Family Housing Direct relending loan program and
urges the Department to expand the pilot to other states, particu-
larly in the southwestern United States.
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $1,410,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 1,495,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,450,000,000
Rental assistance is authorized under section 521(a)(2) of the
Housing Act of 1949 (Public Law 87–171). The objective of the pro-
gram is to reduce rents paid by low-income families living in RHS-
financed rental projects and farm labor housing projects. Under
this program, low-income tenants will contribute the higher of: (1)
30 percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of monthly
income; or (3) designated housing payments from a welfare agency.
Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for the
difference between the tenant’s payment and the approved rental
rate established for the unit.
The program is administered in tandem with RHS section 515
rural rental housing program and the farm labor loan and grant
programs. Priority is given to existing projects for rental units oc-
cupied by over-burdened low-income families and projects experi-
encing financial difficulties beyond the control of the owner.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,450,000,000
for the Rental Assistance Program.
Housing vouchers are addressed in the Rural Housing Voucher
Account.
Rental Assistance Priority.—The Secretary is encouraged to
prioritize multi-family housing properties acquired by means of a
section 515 loan within the current fiscal year when determining
current rental assistance needs.
86
RURAL HOUSING VOUCHER ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $40,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... ...........................
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 45,000,000
The Rural Housing Voucher Program was authorized under the
Housing Act of 1949 (Public Law 81–171) to assist very low-income
families and individuals who reside in rental housing in rural
areas. Housing vouchers may be provided to residents of rental
housing projects financed by section 515 loans that have been pre-
paid or paid off after September 30, 2005. Voucher amounts reflect
the difference between comparable market rents and tenant-paid
rent prior to loan pre-payment. Vouchers allow tenants to remain
in existing projects or move to other rental housing.
The MPR program has been transferred to the Rural Housing In-
surance Fund Account.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $45,000,000 for
the Rural Housing Voucher Program.
Multi-Family Housing Preservation.—The Committee still awaits
the report estimating the cost of providing rural housing vouchers
to all low-income households currently receiving USDA rental as-
sistance and residing in a property financed with a Section 515
loan that are set to mature in the subsequent fiscal year and sub-
sequent 10 fiscal years. In addition, the Secretary is reminded to
provide quarterly reports to the Committee on transfers between
vouchers and the housing preservation demonstration program
within the Multi-Family Housing Revitalization Program Account.
MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $31,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 32,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 32,000,000
The Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants Program is author-
ized by title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (Public Law 81–171).
Grants are made to local organizations to promote the development
of mutual or self-help programs under which groups of usually six
to ten families build their own homes by mutually exchanging
labor. Funds may be used to pay the cost of construction super-
visors who work with families in the construction of their homes
and for administrative expenses of the organizations providing the
self-help assistance.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $32,000,000 for
Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants.
RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $45,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 45,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 45,000,000
The Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program consolidates
funding for rural housing grant programs. This consolidation of
87
housing grant funding provides greater flexibility to tailor financial
assistance to applicant needs.
Very Low-Income Housing Repair Grants.—The Very Low-Income
Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504 of
title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (Public Law 81–171). The rural
housing repair grant program is carried out by making grants to
very low-income families to conduct necessary repairs to their
homes in order to make such dwellings safe and sanitary and to
remove hazards to the health of the occupants, their families, or
the community.
These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements or
additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet facilities, pro-
viding a convenient and sanitary water supply, supplying screens,
repairing or providing structural supports, or making similar re-
pairs, additions, or improvements, including all preliminary and in-
stallation costs in obtaining central water and sewer service. A
grant can be made in combination with a section 504 very low-in-
come housing repair loan.
No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the form
of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess of $7,500,
and grant assistance is limited to persons or families headed by
persons who are 62 years of age or older.
Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grants.—Supervisory and
technical assistance grants are made to public and private non-
profit organizations for packaging loan applications for housing as-
sistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and 533 of the
Housing Act of 1949 (Public Law 81–171). The assistance is di-
rected to very low-income families in underserved areas where at
least 20 percent of the population is below the poverty level and
at least 10 percent or more of the population resides in sub-
standard housing. In fiscal year 1994, a Homebuyer Education Pro-
gram was implemented under this authority. This program pro-
vides low-income individuals and families with education and coun-
seling on obtaining and/or maintaining occupancy of adequate
housing and supervised credit assistance to become successful
homeowners.
Compensation for Construction Defects.—Compensation for con-
struction defects provides funds for grants to eligible section 502
borrowers to correct structural defects or to pay claims of owners
arising from such defects on a newly constructed dwelling pur-
chased with RHS financial assistance. Claims are not paid until
provisions under the builder’s warranty have been fully pursued.
Requests for compensation for construction defects must be made
by the owner of the property within 18 months after the date finan-
cial assistance was granted.
Rural Housing Preservation Grants.—Rural housing preservation
grants (section 533) of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act
of 1983 (Public Law 98–181) authorizes the Rural Housing Service
to administer a program of home repair directed at low- and very
low-income people.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $45,000,000 for
the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program.
88
The following table compares the grant program levels rec-
ommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2021 levels and the
budget request:
RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Very low-income housing repair grants .............................................. 30,000 30,000 30,000
Housing preservation grants ............................................................... 15,000 15,000 15,000
Total ........................................................................................
I 45,000
I 45,000
I 45,000
RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $74,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 74,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 172,690,000
Community facility loans were created by the Rural Development
Act of 1972 (Public Law 92–419) to finance a variety of rural com-
munity facilities. Loans are made to organizations, including cer-
tain Indian Tribes and corporations not operated for profit and
public and quasi-public agencies, to construct, enlarge, extend, or
otherwise improve community facilities providing essential services
to rural residents. Such facilities include those providing or sup-
porting overall community development, such as fire and rescue
services, healthcare, transportation, traffic control, and community,
social, cultural, and recreational benefits. Loans are made for facili-
ties which primarily serve rural residents of open country and
rural towns and villages of not more than 20,000 people.
Healthcare, fire and rescue facilities, and educational facilities are
the priorities of the program and receive the majority of available
funds.
The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the Fed-
eral Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law
104–127) is used in conjunction with the existing direct and guar-
anteed loan programs for the development of community facilities
such as hospitals, fire stations, and community centers. Grants are
targeted to the lowest income communities. Communities that have
lower population and income levels receive a higher cost-share con-
tribution through these grants with a maximum contribution of 75
percent of the cost of developing the facility.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $172,690,000 for
the Rural Community Facilities Program Account.
The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations,
as compared to the fiscal year 2021 and budget request levels:
89
RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Loan Levels:
Community facilities direct loans .............................................. 2,800,000 2,800,000 2,800,000
Community facilities guaranteed loans ..................................... 500,000 500,000 500,000
Total, loan levels .................................................................... 3,300,000 3,300,000 3,300,000
Budget Authority:
Community facilities grants ....................................................... 32,000 58,000 48,000
Congressionally Directed Spending ............................................ .......................... .......................... 83,690
Economic initiative grants .......................................................... 6,000 .......................... ..........................
Rural community development initiative .................................... 6,000 6,000 6,000
Tribal college grants ................................................................... 5,000 10,000 10,000
Non-conforming subsidy ............................................................. 25,000 .......................... 25,000
Total, budget authority ........................................................... 74,000 74,000 172,690
Congressionally Directed Spending [CDS].—The Committee has
provided CDS for certain activities and locations under Rural Com-
munity Facilities Program. While the Committee has provided the
funding, recipients of CDS are still required to apply for the fund-
ing and must meet all statutory and regulatory requirements. The
Committee expects the agency to review the applications and fund
projects in the same manner as in previous years.
Rural Community Facilities Program Priorities.—The Committee
recognizes the important role that the Rural Community Facilities
program can play in addressing the Nation’s opioid epidemic. Com-
munity Facilities programs have previously supported efforts to ad-
dress substance use disorders through projects such as mobile
treatment clinics and telemedicine services. The Committee encour-
ages the Secretary to make funds available through the Rural
Community Facilities program to provide prevention, treatment, or
recovery services for individuals with substance use disorders.
RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service was established by the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Re-
organization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354), dated October 13,
1994. Its programs were previously administered by the Rural De-
velopment Administration, the Rural Electrification Administra-
tion, and the Agricultural Cooperative Service.
RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $56,400,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 81,150,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 81,150,000
The Rural Business and Industry Loan Program was created by
the Rural Development Act of 1972 (Public Law 92–419), and fi-
nances a variety of rural industrial development loans. Loans are
made for rural industrialization and rural community facilities
under Rural Development Act amendments to the Consolidated
90
Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932 et seq.) authori-
ties. Business and industrial loans are made to public, private, or
cooperative organizations organized for profit; to certain Indian
tribes; or to individuals for the purpose of improving, developing,
or financing business, industry, and employment or improving the
economic and environmental climate in rural areas. Such purposes
include financing business and industrial acquisition, construction,
enlargement, repair or modernization; financing the purchase and
development of land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings, and pay-
ment of startup costs; and supplying working capital.
Rural business development grants were authorized by the Agri-
cultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–79) and can be made to gov-
ernmental and nonprofit entities and Indian Tribes. Up to 10 per-
cent of appropriated funds may be used to identify and analyze
business opportunities; identify, train, and provide technical assist-
ance to existing or prospective rural entrepreneurs and managers;
assist in the establishment of new rural businesses and the mainte-
nance of existing businesses; conduct economic development plan-
ning, coordination, and leadership development; and establish cen-
ters for training, technology, and trade. The balance of appro-
priated funding may be used for projects that support the develop-
ment of business enterprises that finance or facilitate the develop-
ment of small and emerging private business enterprise; the estab-
lishment, expansion, and operation of rural distance learning net-
works; the development of rural learning programs; and the provi-
sion of technical assistance and training to rural communities for
the purpose of improving passenger transportation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $81,150,000 for
the Rural Business Program Account.
The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations,
as compared to the fiscal year 2021 and budget request levels:
RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Loan levels:
Business and industry guaranteed loans loan levels ................ 1,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Total, loan levels .................................................................... 1,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Budget Authority:
Business and industry guaranteed loans .................................. 10,400 30,150 30,150
Rural business development grants ........................................... 37,000 37,000 37,000
DRA, NBRC, and ARC ................................................................. 9,000 9,000 9,000
Rural Innovation Stronger Economy (RISE) Grants 1 .................. 5,000 5,000 5,000
Total, budget authority ........................................................... 56,400 81,150 81,150
1 RISE grants are funded under a general provision in fiscal year 2021.
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities.—The Committee
recognizes that strong partnerships exist between RD and Federal
Regional Commissions and Authorities. The Committee encourages
RD to coordinate with the Regional Commissions to promote effi-
91
ciency during the grant planning and review process. Additionally,
the Committee encourages RD to ensure flexible processes are
available for each Regional Commission as appropriate.
Meat Processing Facilities.—The Committee directs the Secretary
to prioritize applications that establish or expand very small and
small meat processing facilities.
Rural Innovation Stronger Economy [RISE] Grants.—The Com-
mittee provides $5,000,000 for the RISE grant program enacted as
part of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–
334). These grants have the potential to help struggling commu-
nities by funding jobs accelerators in low-income rural areas. The
Committee recommends funding be prioritized for entities
leveraging next generation gigabit broadband service to promote
entrepreneurship and entities based in geographical areas with es-
tablished agriculture and technology sectors which are focused on
the development of precision and autonomous agriculture tech-
nologies as a way to strengthen rural economies and create jobs.
Rural Business Program Account.—The Committee recommends
$500,000 for transportation technical assistance.
The Committee directs that of the $4,000,000 recommended for
grants to benefit federally Recognized Native American Tribes,
$250,000 shall be used to implement an American Indian and Alas-
ka Native passenger transportation development and assistance
initiative.
INTERMEDIARY RELENDING PROGRAM FUND ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Estimated loan level ...................................................................... 18,889 18,889 18,889
Direct loan subsidy ........................................................................ 2,939 1,524 1,524
Administrative expenses ................................................................ 4,468 4,468 4,468
Total, loan subsidies and administrative expenses ........ 7,407 5,992 5,992
The Rural Development Intermediary Relending Loan program
was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964
(Public Law 88–452). The making of rural development loans by
USDA was reauthorized by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public
Law 113–79).
Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (small investment
groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural businesses, com-
munity development corporations, private nonprofit organizations,
public agencies, et cetera, for the purpose of improving business,
industry, community facilities, employment opportunities, and di-
versification of the economy in rural areas.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 74–605) es-
tablished the program account. Appropriations to this account will
be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the di-
rect loans obligated in 2022, as well as administrative expenses.
92
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,992,000 for
the Intermediary Relending Program Fund.
RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
Estimated loan
level
Fiscal year 2021 level ........................................................................................................................................ 50,000
Fiscal year 2022 request ................................................................................................................................... 50,000
Committee recommendation .............................................................................................................................. 50,000
The Rural Economic Development Loans program was estab-
lished by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (Public Law
100–203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7
U.S.C. 901), by establishing a new section 313. This section of the
Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901) established a cushion of
credit payment program and created the rural economic develop-
ment subaccount. The Administrator of RUS is authorized under
the Act to utilize funds in this program to provide zero interest
loans to electric and telecommunications borrowers for the purpose
of promoting rural economic development and job creation projects,
including funding for feasibility studies, startup costs, and other
reasonable expenses for the purpose of fostering rural economic de-
velopment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a loan program level of $50,000,000,
to be funded from earnings on the Cushion of Credit and fees on
guaranteed underwriting loans made pursuant to section 313A of
the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901).
RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $26,600,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 26,600,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 26,800,000
Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under sec-
tion 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act
(Public Law 113–79), as amended. Grants are made to fund the es-
tablishment and operation of centers for rural cooperative develop-
ment with the primary purpose of improving economic conditions
in rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or in-
stitutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up to 75
percent of the cost of the project and associated administrative
costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25 percent from non-
Federal sources, except 1994 institutions, which only need to pro-
vide five percent. Grants are competitive and are awarded based on
specific selection criteria.
Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C.
2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements,
primarily with colleges and universities, on critical operational, or-
ganizational, and structural issues facing cooperatives.
93
Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201 to
any qualified State departments of agriculture, universities, and
other State entities to conduct research that will strengthen and
enhance the operations of agricultural marketing cooperatives in
rural areas.
The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas [ATTRA]
program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985
(Public Law 99–198). The program provides information and tech-
nical assistance to agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agri-
cultural practices that are environmentally friendly and lower pro-
duction costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $26,800,000 for
Rural Cooperative Development Grants.
Of the funds recommended, $3,000,000 is for the Appropriate
Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program.
The Committee includes bill language directing that not more
than $3,000,000 be made available to cooperatives or associations
of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide assistance to
small, minority producers.
Agriculture Innovation Centers.—The Committee recommends
$3,000,000 for Agriculture Innovation Center funding, as author-
ized in section 6402 of Public Law 107–171, to be available as
grants to States authorized to host, and that have previously
hosted, a USDA Agriculture Innovation Center and where the
State continues to demonstrate support and provide non-Federal
grant funding to producers developing, producing, and marketing
value-added agricultural and food products. Prior year or current
grant awardees shall be eligible for these funds.
Council on Rural Community Innovation and Economic Develop-
ment.—The Committee is still awaiting the report on implementa-
tion of Section 6306 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018
(Public Law 115–334), including a projected timeline for full imple-
mentation of this provision.
Value-Added Producer Grants.—The Committee directs that
Value-Added Producer Grants be prioritized to support the produc-
tion of value-added agricultural products, including dairy, with sig-
nificant potential to expand production and processing in the
United States.
RURAL MICROENTREPRENEUR ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 8,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,000,000
The Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program is authorized
under section 379E(d) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Devel-
opment Act (7 U.S.C. 2008s). This program provides direct loans
and grants to microentreprenuer development organizations with
the skills necessary to establish new rural microenterprises and
provide technical assistance to maintain the successful operation of
rural microenterprises.
94
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriations of $6,000,000 for
the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program.
RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $392,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 30,168,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 22,168,000
The Rural Energy for America Program is authorized under sec-
tion 9007 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
(Public Law 107–171). This program may fund energy audits, di-
rect loans, loan guarantees, and grants to farmers, ranchers, and
small rural businesses for the purchase of renewable energy sys-
tems and for energy efficiency improvements.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,168,000 for
the Rural Energy for America Program.
The following table provides the Committee’s recommendation as
compared to the fiscal year 2021 and budget request levels:
RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Estimated loan level .................................................................................. 20,000 20,000 20,000
Guaranteed loan subsidy ........................................................................... 392 168 168
Grants ........................................................................................................
I
........................
I 30,000
I 20,000
Rural Energy for America Program.—The Committee encourages
the Department to focus a portion of funding on underserved re-
newable technologies. The Committee also notes that the 2018
Farm Bill provides annual mandatory funds for this program as
follows: $38,000,000 for grants and $12,000,000 in loan subsidy for
guaranteed loans, which has an estimated loan level of
$1,428,571,000 in fiscal year 2022.
HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,000,000
The Healthy Food Financing Initiative is authorized under sec-
tion 4206 of the Agricultural Act of 2014. This program provides
financial and technical assistance to regional, State and local part-
nerships, and helps fund projects to improve access to fresh,
healthy foods in underserved rural areas. This program is funded
under a general provision for fiscal year 2021.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriations of $6,000,000 for
the Healthy Food Financing Initiative. The program is funded
under a general provision in fiscal year 2021.
95
RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE
The Rural Utilities Service was established under the Federal
Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganiza-
tion Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354). RUS administers the elec-
tric and telephone programs of the former Rural Electrification Ad-
ministration and the water and waste programs of the former
Rural Development Administration.
RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $621,567,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 716,557,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 665,702,000
The water and waste disposal program is authorized by sections
306, 306A, 309A, 306C, 306D, 306E, and 310B of the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act (Public Law 87–128). This pro-
gram makes loans for water and waste development costs. Develop-
ment loans are made to associations, including corporations oper-
ating on a nonprofit basis, municipalities, and similar organiza-
tions generally designated as public or quasi-public agencies, that
propose projects for the development, storage, treatment, purifi-
cation, and distribution of domestic water or the collection, treat-
ment, or disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may not ex-
ceed 75 percent of the development cost of the projects and can
supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to pay
development costs.
The solid waste grant program is authorized under section
310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act
(Public Law 87–128). Grants are made to public entities and pri-
vate nonprofit organizations to provide technical assistance to local
and regional governments for the purpose of reducing or elimi-
nating pollution of water resources and for improving the planning
and management of solid waste disposal facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $665,702,000 for
the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account.
The Committee recommends $73,000,000 for water and waste
disposal systems grants for Native Americans, including Native
Alaskans, Native Hawaiians, and the Colonias. The Committee rec-
ognizes the special needs and problems for delivery of basic serv-
ices to these populations and encourages the Secretary to distribute
these funds in line with the fiscal year 2014 distribution to the de-
gree practicable. In addition, the Committee makes up to
$20,157,000 available for the circuit rider program.
The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations,
as compared to the fiscal year 2021 and budget request levels:
96
RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Loan levels:
Water and waste disposal direct loans ............................... 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000
Water and waste disposal guaranteed loans ...................... 50,000 50,000 50,000
Total, loan levels .............................................................. 1,450,000 1,450,000 1,450,000
Budget authority:
Water and waste disposal guaranteed loans ...................... 60 45 45
Water and waste disposal grants ........................................ 463,350 528,355 500,000
Solid waste management grants ......................................... 4,000 4,000 4,000
Water well systems grants ................................................... 5,000 5,000 5,000
Colonias, AK, HI and Native American grants ..................... 68,000 93,000 73,000
Water and waste water revolving funds .............................. 1,000 1,000 1,000
High energy cost grants ....................................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000
Circuit rider ........................................................................... 20,157 20,157 20,157
Emergency community water assistance grants .................. 15,000 15,000 15,000
Technical assistance grants ................................................. 35,000 40,000 37,500
Total, budget authority ..................................................... 621,567 716,557 665,702
Septic-related Pollution.—The Committee recognizes the impor-
tance of investing in water and wastewater infrastructure to sig-
nificantly improve water quality, mitigate and reduce environ-
mental contamination, and promote long-term economic growth for
local rural communities. Therefore, the Committee supports fund-
ing to facilitate the development and installation of sanitary sewer
lines and waste water lift stations in rural communities and en-
courages the Department to evaluate proposed projects giving pri-
ority to those projects whose goal is mitigating and reducing septic-
related pollution and establishing comprehensive sewer service to
homes and businesses in rural areas where such projects would be
essential to preserving environmental health and the health, safety
and general welfare of local citizens.
Small-Scale Water and Wastewater Technologies Pilot Pro-
gram.—The Committee recognizes that small and rural commu-
nities located within Central Appalachia can lack access to reliable
water and sanitation because they do not have the capacity or pop-
ulation bases to support centralized water systems. Within the
funds provided for the Rural Water and Wastewater Disposal pro-
gram, the Committee encourages the Department to fund pilot
projects intended to provide decentralized small-scale water and
wastewater services to communities in distressed counties within
Central Appalachia.
Technical Assistance.—The Committee provides a $2,500,000 in-
crease for technical assistance and directs no less than $1,000,000
of the increase to be used to support manufactured homes.
97
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM
ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (Public Law 74–605) pro-
vides the statutory authority for the electric and telecommuni-
cations programs.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–508) es-
tablished the program account. An appropriation to this account
will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the
direct loans obligated and loan guarantees committed in fiscal year
2022, as well as administrative expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendation for
the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program
Account, the loan subsidy and administrative expenses, as com-
pared to the fiscal year 2021 and budget request levels:
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Loan authorization:
Electric:
Direct FFB ................................................................................... 5,500,000 .......................... ..........................
Electric Direct, Treasury Rate ..................................................... .......................... 6,500,000 6,500,000
Guaranteed underwriting ............................................................ 750,000 .......................... 750,000
Telecommunications:
Direct, Treasury Rate .................................................................. 345,000 690,000 690,000
Direct, FFB .................................................................................. 345,000 .......................... ..........................
Rural Energy Savings Program 1 ................................................ 107,317 398,551 208,333
Total, Loan authorization ....................................................... 6,940,000 7,588,551 8,148,333
Direct, Treasury Rate Telecomm Subsidy ................................... 2,277 2,070 2,070
Electric Loan Modifications ........................................................ .......................... 400,000 ..........................
Rural Energy Savings Program 1 ................................................ 11,000 22,000 11,500
Telecomm. Treasury Modification ............................................... .......................... 25,000 ..........................
Administrative Expenses ............................................................. 33,270 33,270 33,270
Total budget authority ............................................................ 35,547 482,340 46,840
1 This Rural Energy Savings Program is funded under a general provision in fiscal year 2021.
DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Loan and grant levels:
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
Grants ......................................................................................... 60,000 60,000 60,000
Congressionally Directed Spending ............................................ .......................... .......................... 2,510
Broadband Program:
Treasury rate loans budget authority ......................................... 2,000 1,772 2,272
Grants ......................................................................................... 35,000 35,000 37,500
Re-Connect 1 ............................................................................... .......................... 650,000 ..........................
98
DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Total, DLT and Broadband budget authority ......................... 97,000 746,772 102,282
1 The bill continues to fund the ReConnect loan and grant program under a general provision.
The Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program is
authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act
of 1990 (Public Law 101–624), as amended by the Federal Agri-
culture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–
127). This program provides incentives to improve the quality of
phone services, provide access to advanced telecommunications
services and computer networks, and improve rural opportunities.
This program provides the facilities and equipment to link rural
education and medical facilities with more urban centers and other
facilities, providing rural residents access to better healthcare
through technology and increasing educational opportunities for
rural students. These funds are available for loans and grants.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $102,282,000 for
the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program.
The Committee provides $3,000,000 to address critical healthcare
needs, as authorized by section 379G of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act (Public Law 115–334).
Broadband Interagency Agreement.—The Committee directs the
Department to provide quarterly updates on the progress of the
interagency agreement between the Federal Communications Com-
mission, the National Telecommunications and Information Admin-
istration, and USDA.
Congressionally Directed Spending [CDS].—The Committee has
provided CDS for certain activities and locations under Distance
Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program. While the Com-
mittee has provided the funding, recipients of CDS are still re-
quired to apply for the funding and must meet all statutory and
regulatory requirements. The Committee expects the agency to re-
view the applications and fund projects in the same manner as in
previous years.
Mountainous Terrain.—The Committee is concerned that States
with challenging, mountainous terrain incur higher costs when it
comes to broadband deployment. The Committee recognizes the im-
portance of the Community Connect Program and its ability to
bring much needed broadband to rural America and requests that
the Secretary prioritize awarding funding in areas with moun-
tainous terrain.
ReConnect.—The Committee provides $700,000,000 for the Re-
Connect pilot, which was established in the Consolidated Appro-
priations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115–141). The Committee recog-
nizes that the Department is in the process of drafting and pub-
lishing the next funding announcement and expects the Depart-
ment to address concerns related to barriers with the application
process mentioned in the fiscal year 2021 appropriations act and
report. Until the announcement is published, the Committee reiter-
99
ates previous concerns on this matter and directs the Secretary to
allow entities of any structure, including partnerships and infra-
structure applications, to apply provided sufficient assurances are
given that broadband service will be provided to the subject area
through contractual arrangements. In addition, the Committee re-
minds USDA to avoid efforts that could duplicate existing networks
built by private investment or those built leveraging and utilizing
other Federal programs and to coordinate with the National Tele-
communications Information Administration and the Federal Com-
munications Commission to ensure wherever possible that any
funding provided to support deployment of last-mile broadband in-
frastructure is targeted to areas that are currently unserved. Fur-
ther, the Committee encourages the agency to prioritize projects fi-
nanced through public-private partnerships and projects where
Federal funding will not exceed 50 percent of the project’s total
cost. The Committee also supports efforts to increase transparency
and encourages the Secretary to follow the notice and comment
rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (Public
Law 79–404) with respect to all program administration and activi-
ties, including publishing a written decision on RUS’ website of
how challenges were decided and the agency’s reasons for such de-
cision. In addition, the Committee intended the pilot to be tech-
nology neutral and encourages the Secretary to eliminate or revise
the awarding of extra points under the ReConnect program to ap-
plicants from States without restrictions on broadband delivery by
utilities service providers in order to ensure this criteria is not a
determining factor for funding awards. The Committee also encour-
ages the Department to allow service areas that received CAF II
funds to allow other entities to apply for ReConnect funding for the
same service area if the CAF II funds supported satellite deploy-
ment and the entity that received CAF II funds cannot provide ter-
restrial broadband. In addition, the Committee is concerned that
states and territories outside the contiguous United States are hav-
ing difficulty participating with the USDA broadband programs,
and encourages the Secretary to consider grants or loans for sat-
ellite, or other technologies, if such middle mile infrastructure pre-
dominantly serves a ‘‘rural area’’ as defined in section 601(b) and
do not lead to overbuilding.
Rural in Character.—The Committee is concerned that the cur-
rent weighting scale for the ReConnect program disadvantages
rural households and communities that are not necessarily located
on farms. In addition, the Committee is concerned that providing
preference to 100mbps symmetrical service also unfairly disadvan-
tages these communities by limiting the deployment of other tech-
nologies capable of providing service to these areas. Further, the
Committee is concerned that the current program does not effec-
tively recognize the unique challenges and opportunities that dif-
ferent technologies, including satellite, provide to delivering
broadband in noncontiguous States or mountainous terrain.
TITLE IV
DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION, AND
CONSUMER SERVICES
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $809,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 1,327,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,327,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Con-
sumer Services provides direction and coordination in carrying out
the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s
nutrition assistance activities. The Office has oversight and man-
agement responsibilities for the Food and Nutrition Service [FNS].
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,327,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Con-
sumer Services.
Application Process.—The Committee is concerned that the appli-
cation process for organizations which participate in both the Sum-
mer Food Service Program and the Child and Adult Care Food Pro-
gram diverts resources away from serving vulnerable populations.
The Committee directs USDA to determine ways to streamline the
application process to reduce the administrative burden to pro-
viders. USDA is specifically directed to consider allowing organiza-
tions in good standing for 3 years participating in both programs
to file only one application to administer both programs each year.
USDA is further directed to provide a report to the Committee on
steps they have taken to address this issue, including any addi-
tional streamlining actions the agency would recommend but lacks
the authority to execute.
Mobile Food Services Support.—The Committee applauds the
work that the department has done during the COVID–19 pan-
demic to address the increase in need for emergency food assist-
ance. The Committee urges FNS to focus efforts on providing sup-
port to states with high levels of food insecurity, including high
density vulnerable populations in areas without adequate transpor-
tation most affected by unemployment due to the pandemic. The
Committee encourages FNS to assess gaps in current feeding pro-
grams in order to reduce inadequacies that lead to nutrition gaps.
Food Security in Frontier Communities.—The Committee appre-
ciates the intent of FNS to focus on implementing locally-designed
initiatives to increase food security in frontier communities within
its area of responsibility. Helping these communities adapt to
changing growing conditions and subsistence food availability and
develop the capacity to grow more food locally will improve their
(100)
101
tenuous food security and provide opportunities for economic devel-
opment in extremely low-income regions. Therefore, the Committee
strongly encourages FNS to continue to work closely with relevant
stakeholders in States with frontier communities to support activi-
ties and policies that will result in increased food security. The
Committee directs FNS to collaborate with AMS in implementing
Micro-Grants for Food Security.
Nutrition Program Efficiency.—The Committee encourages the
Secretary to focus process and technology improvement grants
within FNS to expand public-private partnerships to increase food
security in a cost-efficient and accountable manner.
Online Purchasing.—The Committee recognizes that online pur-
chasing provides flexibility to low-income families who lack access
to reliable transportation and is an important option to mitigate
the spread of infectious diseases. USDA should make every effort
to expand the acceptance of program benefits through online trans-
actions, including at virtual farmers’ markets and farm stores, to
all States across the Nation as quickly as possible.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP] Eligibility.—
The Committee understands that there are frequent changes to
SNAP eligibility criteria to best serve those most in need. The
Committee is concerned about the effects specific changes in SNAP
eligibility can have on children, seniors, individuals with disabil-
ities, and rural and poor communities that are not always looked
at on a State-by-State level. The Committee encourages the Sec-
retary to include these State-by-State demographic profiles in the
regulatory impact analysis for any newly proposed or currently
pending eligibility criteria changes.
FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE
The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational ef-
fort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country. Nutri-
tion assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally adequate
diet for low-income individuals and families and encourage better
eating patterns among the Nation’s children. These programs in-
clude:
Child Nutrition Programs [CNP].—The National School Lunch
and School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, and Child and Adult
Care Food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam for use in serving nu-
tritious lunches and breakfasts to children attending schools of
high school grades and under, to children of preschool age in child
care centers, and to children in other institutions in order to im-
prove the health and well-being of the Nation’s children and broad-
en the markets for agricultural food commodities. Through the Spe-
cial Milk Program, assistance is provided to the States for making
reimbursement payments to eligible schools and child care institu-
tions which institute or expand milk service in order to increase
the consumption of fluid milk by children. Funds for this program
are provided by direct appropriation and transfer from section 32.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children [WIC].—This program safeguards the health of preg-
nant, postpartum, and breast-feeding women, and infants and chil-
dren up to age five who are at nutritional risk because of inad-
102
equate nutrition and income by providing supplemental foods. The
delivery of supplemental foods may be done through health clinics,
vouchers redeemable at retail food stores, or other approved meth-
ods which a cooperating State health agency may select. Funds for
this program are provided by direct appropriation.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP].—This pro-
gram seeks to improve nutritional standards of needy persons and
families. Assistance is provided to eligible households to enable
them to obtain a better diet by increasing their food purchasing ca-
pability, usually by furnishing benefits in the form of electronic ac-
cess to funds. The program includes Nutrition Assistance to Puerto
Rico [NAP]. The program also includes the Food Distribution Pro-
gram on Indian Reservations [FDPIR], which provides nutritious
agricultural commodities to low-income persons living on or near
Indian reservations who choose not to participate in SNAP.
Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].—This program provides
funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP],
the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program [FMNP], Disaster Assist-
ance, Pacific Island Assistance, and administrative expenses for the
Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP]. CSFP provides sup-
plemental foods to low-income elderly persons age 60 and over.
TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State agencies to
assist in the cost of storage and distribution of donated commod-
ities. Nutritious agricultural commodities are provided to residents
of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands.
Cash assistance is provided to distributing agencies to assist them
in meeting administrative expenses incurred. CAP also provides
funding for use in non-presidentially declared disasters and for
FNS’s administrative costs in connection with relief for all disas-
ters. Funds for this program are provided by direct appropriation.
Nutrition Programs Administration.—Most salaries and Federal
operating expenses of FNS are funded from this account. Also in-
cluded is the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, which
oversees improvements in and revisions to the food guidance sys-
tems and serves as the focal point for advancing and coordinating
nutrition promotion and education policy to improve the health of
all Americans.
CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $25,118,440,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 26,887,922,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 26,878,922,000
Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act (Public Law 79–396) and the Child Nu-
trition Act of 1966 (Public Law 89–642), provide Federal assistance
to State agencies in the form of cash and commodities for use in
preparing and serving nutritious meals to children while they are
attending school, residing in service institutions, or participating in
other organized activities away from home. The purpose of these
programs is to help maintain the health and proper physical devel-
opment of America’s children. Milk is provided to children either
free or at a low cost, depending on their family income level. FNS
103
provides cash subsidies to States for administering the programs
and directly administers the program in the States which choose
not to do so. Grants are also made for nutritional training and sur-
veys and for State administrative expenses. Under current law,
most of these payments are made on the basis of reimbursement
rates established by law and applied to lunches and breakfasts ac-
tually served by the States. The reimbursement rates are adjusted
annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for food
away from home.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $26,878,922,000 for the Child Nutri-
tion Programs.
The Committee’s recommendation provides for the following an-
nual rates for the child nutrition programs.
TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY
[In thousands of dollars]
Committee
Child nutrition programs recommendation
School Lunch Program ....................................................................................................................................... 14,665,855
School Breakfast Program ................................................................................................................................. 5,188,750
Child and Adult Care Food Program ................................................................................................................. 4,314,605
Summer Food Service Program .......................................................................................................................... 581,074
Special Milk Program ......................................................................................................................................... 6,250
State Administrative Expenses .......................................................................................................................... 332,000
Commodity Procurement .................................................................................................................................... 1,567,663
Team Nutrition/HUSSC/CMS ............................................................................................................................... 3,048
Food Safety Education ....................................................................................................................................... 10,000
Coordinated Review ............................................................................................................................................ 26,753
Computer Support .............................................................................................................................................. 41,498
Training and Technical Assistance .................................................................................................................... 15,607
CNP Studies and Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 11,656
Farm to School Team ......................................................................................................................................... 6,159
Payment Accuracy .............................................................................................................................................. 20,004
School Meal Equipment Grants ......................................................................................................................... 35,000
Summer EBT Demonstration .............................................................................................................................. 45,000
Child Nutrition Training ..................................................................................................................................... 2,000
School Breakfast Expansion Grants ................................................................................................................... 6,000
The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food Service
Management Institute to carry out the food safety education pro-
gram.
Crediting System.—The Committee recognizes that the current
crediting system used by FNS in administering the School Lunch
Program and the School Breakfast Program has not been updated
to keep pace with products in the marketplace. Specifically, Greek
yogurt receives the same protein crediting as other products with
less protein. The Committee directs the Secretary to update the
system of crediting high-protein yogurt to accurately reflect sci-
entifically demonstrated higher protein content in strained yogurt.
Farm to School Program.—Successful implementation of Farm to
School programs requires broad-based knowledge of best practices
regarding coordination among farmers, processors, distributors,
students, teachers, dietary and food preparation staff, and USDA
professionals. Since the scope of some Farm to School projects has
expanded in recent years, the Committee has included language to
104
allow maximum grant amounts to increase to $500,000. Of the
grant funds provided, the Committee directs the Secretary to use
$500,000 to form at least one cooperative agreement with an estab-
lished entity, such as regional a Farm to School institute, for the
creation and dissemination of information on farm to school pro-
gram development and to provide practitioner education, training,
ongoing school year coaching, and technical assistance.
Pulse Crops.—The Committee recognizes the nutritional value of
pulse crops for children and encourages FNS to support school food
authorities in sourcing and serving pulse crops.
School Breakfast Commodities.—Of the $485,000,000 appro-
priated for Child Nutrition Programs Entitlement Commodities
under Section 714 of this Act, $20,000,000shall be proportionally
offered to States based on the number of breakfasts served in the
preceding school year.
Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer [EBT].—The Committee un-
derstands that Summer EBT has been proven to lower food insecu-
rity among children during the summer months when school is not
in session. The Committee is displeased that the Food and Nutri-
tion Service changed the methodology for funding this program in
fiscal year 2019. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary to
fund this program in fiscal year 2022 in the same manner, includ-
ing the same States and tribal organizations, as it was funded in
fiscal year 2018.
Summer Food Service Program.—The Committee recognizes that
in many rural and frontier areas of the country where homes are
widely scattered, children and youth are unable to access con-
gregate feeding sites that participate in the Summer Food Service
Program and that existing mobile food delivery efforts are not able
to meet the need. The Committee supports FNS allowing State
Agencies to enable Summer Food Service Program service institu-
tions that serve such areas where eligible children and youth have
barriers to access or limited access to a congregate feeding site to
use their customary reimbursement payments to develop and im-
plement innovative methods to deliver or otherwise make available
foods to eligible children and youth by non-congregate means or in
non-congregate settings. The Committee also supports USDA ex-
tending the pilot of meal delivery directly to the homes of rural and
frontier children by providing available funding through a grant or
cooperative agreement to a non-profit provider that works with
local service institutions to enroll eligible low-income children. In
addition, the Committee requests USDA submit a report within 1
year of enactment of this Act describing how many Summer Food
Service Program grantees, in which States, put in place innovative
methods of food delivery by non-congregate means and in non-con-
gregate settings, what innovative methods were used, and how
many additional youth were served as a result.
SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS,
AND CHILDREN [WIC]
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $6,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 6,000,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,278,000,000
105
The WIC program is authorized by section 17 of the Child Nutri-
tion Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the health of pregnant,
breast-feeding, and postpartum women and infants and children up
to age five who are at nutritional risk because of inadequate nutri-
tion and inadequate income.
The WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods
which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the
WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental
foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable juice
which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut butter.
There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC foods:
(1) retail purchase in which participants obtain supplemental foods
through retail stores; (2) home delivery systems in which food is
delivered to the participant’s home; and (3) direct distribution sys-
tems in which participants pick up food from a distribution outlet.
The food is free of charge to all participants.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,278,000,000
for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants,
and Children.
The Committee recommendation fully funds estimated WIC par-
ticipation in fiscal year 2022. The Committee provides $90,000,000
for breastfeeding support initiatives and $13,600,000 for infrastruc-
ture.
Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome Recommendations.—WIC des-
ignated Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome [NAS] as a nutrition risk
factor in 2017, and WIC agencies across the country actively screen
for symptoms of substance use, referring mothers who may be
struggling with substance use disorder to appropriate services. The
Committee encourages USDA to collaborate with the Department
of Health and Human Services on the development of uniform, evi-
dence-based nutrition education materials in order to best serve
WIC-eligible pregnant women and caregivers to infants impacted
by NAS. Uniform materials will enhance WIC’s ongoing efforts to
screen and support infants exhibiting symptoms of NAS.
WIC Food Package.—The Committee appreciates the work of the
National Academies of Science to review and make recommenda-
tions for updating the WIC food packages to reflect current science
and cultural factors. The Committee notes, however, that while all
revised packages now allow some fish, the amounts remain low
and, in some cases, sporadic, compared to the recommendations of
authoritative agencies such as the World Health Organization. The
Committee strongly encourages the Department to prioritize the
health and cultural benefits of fish consumption as regulations are
revised to implement the NAS recommendations and to increase
the amount of healthful fish above the amounts recommended by
the NAS. The Committee also strongly encourages the Department
to allow States to prioritize fish over legumes and peanut butter to
respond to the cultural preferences of WIC participants in States
like Alaska.
106
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2021 .............................................................................$114,035,578,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 105,797,197,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 105,829,347,000
SNAP attempts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-
income persons by increasing their food purchasing power. Eligible
households receive SNAP benefits with which they can purchase
food through regular retail stores.
Other programs funded through SNAP include Nutrition Assist-
ance to Puerto Rico and American Samoa, the Food Distribution
Program on Indian Reservations, the Emergency Food Assistance
Program, and the Community Food Projects program.
SNAP is currently in operation in all 50 States, the District of
Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. Participating households
receive food benefits, the value of which is determined by house-
hold size and income. The cost of the benefits is paid by the Fed-
eral Government. As required by law, FNS annually revises house-
hold benefit allotments to reflect changes in the cost of the thrifty
food plan.
Administrative Costs.—All direct and indirect administrative
costs incurred for certification of households, issuance of benefits,
quality control, outreach, and fair hearing efforts are shared by the
Federal Government and the States on a 50–50 basis.
State Antifraud Activities.—Under the provisions of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–246), States are eligible to
be reimbursed for 50 percent of the costs of their fraud investiga-
tions and prosecutions.
States are required to implement an employment and training
program for the purpose of assisting members of households par-
ticipating in SNAP in gaining skills, training, or experience that
will increase their ability to obtain regular employment. USDA has
implemented a grant program to States to assist them in providing
employment and training services.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $105,829,347,000 for the Supple-
mental Nutrition Assistance Program. Of the amount rec-
ommended, $3,000,000,000 is made available as a contingency re-
serve.
Data Matching.—The Committee continues to support the imple-
mentation of the National Accuracy Clearinghouse [NAC]. The
Committee directs the Department to move forward with the NAC
to prevent duplicative issuances of SNAP benefits and improve pro-
gram integrity. When the USDA implements and expands the
NAC, the Committee urges the Department to allow States to use
a blended workforce including contractors and subcontractors that
have the capability to use complex match technology with multiple
data elements and administer a robust appeals process to ensure
individuals are not automatically removed from receiving benefits.
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations Food Pack-
age.—The Committee commends the Department for convening the
FDPIR Food Package Review Work Group, which includes Tribal
representatives and staff from FNS, to increase the amount and va-
107
riety of traditional foods included in FDPIR food packages and to
increase the amount of foods purchased from American Indian and
Alaska Native producers and businesses. The Committee directs
the Department to provide a report detailing its plans to include
a greater variety of traditional foods as regular components of
FDPIR food baskets; its plans to identify additional Native Amer-
ican and Alaska Native producers of traditional foods, including
wild salmon, caribou, reindeer, elk, and other foods; and its plans
to purchase additional traditional foods from a greater number of
indigenous producers and businesses.
SNAP Fraud.—A January 2017 OIG report entitled ‘‘Detecting
Potential SNAP Trafficking Using Data Analysis’’ found that FNS
lacked methods to reconcile data discrepancies across its adminis-
tration systems and that retailers were providing benefits to indi-
viduals using fraudulent credentials. The Committee directs FNS
to provide an update on the implementation of controls to address
these problems, as well as data demonstrating whether the controls
have reduced error rates.
SNAP Payment Integrity.—The Committee encourages the Sec-
retary to implement an electronic data matching solution using
third party income databases. The data matching solution should
be made available to all States to assist with the verification of
SNAP program applicant earned income at certification and recer-
tification, as required by law. The Committee encourages FNS to
make an electronic data matching solution available in fiscal year
2022, with a single negotiated price that reduces costs by taking
advantage of economies of scale, and will facilitate greater effi-
ciency and streamlined service delivery at the State level.
COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $426,700,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 442,070,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 447,070,000
The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program and funding to pay ex-
penses associated with the storage and distribution of commodities
through The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program.—Authorized by
section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act of
1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note), as amended in 1981 by Public Law 97–
98 and in 2014 by Public Law 113–79, this program provides sup-
plemental food to low-income senior citizens and, in some cases,
low-income infants and children up to age six and low-income preg-
nant and postpartum women. The Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public
Law 113–79) discontinued the admission of new pregnant and
postpartum women and children into the program. Those already
in the program can continue to receive assistance until they are no
longer eligible.
The foods for CSFP are provided by USDA for distribution
through State agencies. The authorized commodities include iron-
fortified infant formula, rice cereal, cheese, canned juice, evapo-
rated milk and/or nonfat dry milk, canned vegetables or fruits,
canned meat or poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, pea-
108
nut butter, and dry beans. Elderly participants may receive all
commodities except iron-fortified infant formula and rice cereal.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program.—Authorized by the
Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501 et seq.), as
amended, the program provides nutrition assistance to low-income
people through prepared meals served on site and through the dis-
tribution of commodities to low-income households for home con-
sumption. The commodities are provided by USDA to State agen-
cies for distribution through State-established networks. State
agencies make the commodities available to local organizations,
such as soup kitchens, food pantries, food banks, and community
action agencies, for their use in providing nutrition assistance to
those in need.
Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State agencies
which operate commodity distribution programs. Allocation of the
funds to States is based on a formula which considers the States’
unemployment rate and the number of persons with income below
the poverty level.
Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.—The Farmers’ Market Nu-
trition Program provides WIC or WIC-eligible participants with
coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious, unprepared foods, such as
fruits and vegetables, from farmers’ markets. This benefits both
participants and local farmers by increasing the awareness and use
of farmers’ markets by low-income households.
Pacific Island and Disaster Assistance.—This program provides
funding for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands in the form of
commodities and administrative funds. It also provides funding for
use in non-presidentially declared disasters and for FNS’s adminis-
trative costs in connection with relief for all disasters.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $447,070,000 for
the Commodity Assistance Program. The Committee continues to
encourage the Department to distribute Commodity Assistance Pro-
gram funds equitably among the States, based on an assessment
of the needs and priorities of each State and the State’s preference
to receive commodity allocations through each of the programs
funded under this account.
Commodity Supplemental Food Program.—The Committee rec-
ommends $332,000,000 for CSFP. This amount fully funds partici-
pation in fiscal year 2022.
Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.—The Committee is aware
that FMNP provides fresh fruits and vegetables to low-income
mothers and children, benefiting not only WIC participants, but
local farmers as well. Therefore, the Committee recommends
$24,000,000 for FMNP and directs the Secretary to obligate these
funds within 45 days of enactment of this Act.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program.—The Agriculture Im-
provement Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–334) provides $337,000,000
for TEFAP commodities to be purchased with SNAP funds. The
Committee provides $90,000,000 in discretionary funding for
TEFAP transportation, storage, and program integrity. In addition,
the Committee recommendation grants the Secretary authority to
109
transfer up to an additional 20 percent from TEFAP commodities
for this purpose and urges the Secretary to use this authority.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to identify opportuni-
ties for increasing the supply of TEFAP commodities in the coming
fiscal year through bonus and specialty crop purchases. The De-
partment shall make available to the States domestically produced
catfish fillets for distribution to local agencies.
NUTRITION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $156,805,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 191,533,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 178,233,000
The Nutrition Programs Administration appropriation provides
for most of the Federal operating expenses of FNS, which includes
CNP, the Special Milk Program, WIC, SNAP, NAP, and CAP.
The major objective of Nutrition Programs Administration is to
efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition assistance pro-
grams mandated by law. This is to be accomplished by the fol-
lowing: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and supervision to
State agencies and other cooperators; (2) assisting the States and
other cooperators by providing program, managerial, financial, and
other advice and expertise; (3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing
the progress being made toward achieving program objectives; and
(4) carrying out regular staff support functions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $178,233,000 for
Nutrition Programs Administration. The Committee provides fund-
ing of $2,998,000 for pay costs and FERS; $10,300,000 to ensure
the scientific integrity of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans
[DGA]; $5,630,000 for expanded staffing needs; $1,800,000 for ad-
ministrative expenses of the Commodity Supplemental Food Pro-
gram; $1,700,000 for civil rights staffing; and a decrease of
$1,000,000 for DGA review.
TITLE V
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND FOREIGN
AGRICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $887,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 1,408,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,408,000
The Office of the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricul-
tural Affairs provides direction and coordination in carrying out the
laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department’s
international affairs (except for foreign economic development). The
Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the For-
eign Agricultural Service [FAS].
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,408,000 for
the Office of the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricul-
tural Affairs.
Food Chain Systems.—The Committee is aware that the lack of
comprehensive cold food chain systems is one of the main causes
of food loss and results in a significant percentage of food spoilage
from farm-to-market. Preventing food loss and implementing a ro-
bust cold food chain results in substantial benefits such as in-
creased nutrition, a safer food supply, greater economic oppor-
tunity, and increased resilience. In order to maximize the benefit
investment in the agricultural productivity of the developing world,
the Committee encourages the Department to give strong consider-
ation to the use of cold chain technologies and include the develop-
ment of appropriate cooling technologies in programs, policies, and
strategic plans aimed at hunger prevention and food security in de-
veloping agricultural markets.
Food for Progress.—The Committee is concerned with the recent
fiscal year 2021 Food for Progress award, which granted
$100,000,000 to a single entity. Granting the entirety of funding to
a single entity runs counter to Congressional intent, is detrimental
to the continuity of the international value chain development, and
could prevent the global objectives of the Food for Progress pro-
gram from being fully realized. The Committee urges USDA to en-
sure this does not set a precedent for future awards and to report
on steps the Department will take for future awards to ensure this
anomaly does not set a precedent.
Market Access Program [MAP] and Foreign Market Development
Program [FMD] Reporting.—The Committee directs the Depart-
ment to publish an annual report describing the recipients of
funds, including the quantity and specific uses of such funding
(110)
111
awards, granted through MAP and FMD for the purpose of pro-
moting agricultural sales in Cuba, to ensure compliance with Sec.
3201 of Public Law 115–334.
Tariffs.—The Committee is concerned about the long-term im-
pacts of tariffs on the domestic farm economy. Within 180 days of
enactment of this Act, USDA is directed to submit a report that ex-
amines the impact that tariffs imposed pursuant to sections 232
and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and associated retaliatory tariffs
are having and have had on: (1) the rate at which farms, particu-
larly small and medium sized operations, go into bankruptcy; (2)
the ability of farmers and ranchers to receive loans; and (3) the
overall size of the agriculture workforce. The report should include
projections on each of these impacts should these tariffs continue
without relief for the next 5 years, an assessment of how much
market share has been lost by the American agriculture sector as
a result of ongoing trade disputes, and how long USDA expects it
will take to reestablish export markets that have been lost or di-
minished due to the imposition of tariffs.
OFFICE OF CODEX ALIMENTARIUS
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $4,805,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 4,841,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,841,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,841,000 for
the Office of Codex Alimentarius.
FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
[In thousands of dollars]
Transfers from
Appropriations Total
loan accounts
Appropriations, 2021 ........................................................................... 221,835 6,063 227,898
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................ 228,644 6,063 234,707
Committee recommendation ................................................................
I 229,644
I 6,063
I 235,707
The Foreign Agricultural Service was established March 10,
1953, by Secretary’s Memorandum No. 1320, supplement 1. Public
Law 83–690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the agricul-
tural attachés from the Department of State to FAS.
The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S. agricultural in-
terests, promote export of domestic farm products, improve world
trade conditions, and report on agricultural production and trade
in foreign countries. FAS staff are stationed at 98 offices around
the world, where they provide expertise in agricultural economics
and marketing, as well as attaché services.
FAS carries out several export assistance programs to counter
the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by competitors on U.S.
agricultural trade. The Market Access Program [MAP] conducts
both generic and brand-identified promotional programs in conjunc-
tion with nonprofit agricultural associations and private firms fi-
nanced through reimbursable CCC payments.
112
The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to section
5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation and 15
U.S.C. 714–714p. The funds allocated to the General Sales Man-
ager are used for conducting the following programs: (1) CCC Ex-
port Credit Guarantee Program (GSM–102), including facilities fi-
nancing guarantees; (2) Food for Peace; (3) section 416b Overseas
Donations Program; (4) Market Access Program; and (5) programs
authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (Pub-
lic Law 87–155) including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned
commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to
encourage and enhance the export of U.S. agricultural commodities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $235,707,000 for the Foreign Agri-
cultural Service, including a direct appropriation of $229,644,000.
The Committee provides $1,198,000 for International Cooperative
Administrative Support Services; $481,000 for Capital Security
Cost Sharing; $1,800,000 for pay costs for Locally Employed Staff;
$3,330,000 for pay costs and FERS; and $1,000,000 for the Inter-
national Agricultural Education Fellowship program.
Borlaug Fellows Program.—The Committee provides 3.5 million
for the Borlaug International Agricultural Science and Technology
Fellows Program. This program provides training for international
scientists and policymakers from selected developing countries. The
fellows work closely with U.S. specialists in their fields of expertise
and apply that knowledge in their home countries. The Committee
recognizes the importance of this program in helping developing
countries strengthen their agricultural practices and food security.
Cochran Fellowship Program.—The Committee provides
$6,500,000 for the Cochran Fellowship Program. The Committee
encourages the Secretary to continue to provide additional support
for the program through the CCC Emerging Markets Program.
FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE II GRANTS
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $1,740,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 1,570,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,760,000,000
Commodities Supplied in Connection with Dispositions Abroad
(Title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721–1726).—Commodities are supplied without
cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition and to
meet famine and other emergency requirements. Commodities are
also supplied for non-emergencies through public and private agen-
cies, including intergovernmental organizations. The CCC pays
ocean freight on shipments under this title and may also pay over-
land transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well as inter-
nal distribution costs in emergency situations. The funds appro-
priated for title II are made available to private voluntary organi-
zations and cooperatives to assist these organizations in meeting
administrative and related costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,760,000,000
for Food for Peace title II grants.
113
MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD
NUTRITION PROGRAM GRANTS
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $230,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 230,112,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 245,000,000
The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Program helps support education, child development, and
food security for some of the world’s poorest children. The program
provides for donations of U.S. agricultural products, as well as fi-
nancial and technical assistance, for school feeding and maternal
and child nutrition projects in low-income, food-deficit countries
that are committed to universal education. Commodities made
available for donation through agreements with private voluntary
organizations, cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations, and
foreign governments may be donated for direct feeding or for local
sale to generate proceeds to support school feeding and nutrition
projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $245,000,000 for
the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nu-
trition Program.
Local and Regional Procurement.—The Committee provides an
appropriation of $24,000,000 for efforts to build long-term agri-
culture sustainability and establish a local investment in school
feeding programs. With direct U.S. commodity contributions,
projects supported by the McGovern-Dole Food for Education and
Child Nutrition Program have significantly improved the attend-
ance, nourishment, and learning capacity of school-aged children in
low-income countries throughout the impoverished world. New
funding authorities would enable school feeding programs to
proactively transition from direct commodity assistance to locally
sourced agriculture products. The Committee directs the Secretary
to conduct the Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Project
Program in accordance with the priorities of the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT [LOANS]
CREDIT GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
[In thousands of dollars]
Guaranteed loan Administrative
levels expenses
Appropriations, 2021 .......................................................................................................... 6,063 318
Budget estimate, 2022 ....................................................................................................... 6,063 ..........................
Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 6,063 ..........................
In 1980, the CCC instituted the Export Credit Guarantee Pro-
gram (GSM–102) under its charter authority. With this program,
CCC guarantees, for a fee, payments due U.S. exporters under de-
ferred payment sales contracts (up to 36 months) for defaults due
to commercial as well as noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC ex-
114
tends from the date of export to the end of the deferred payment
period covered in the export sales contract and covers only that
portion of the payments agreed to in the assurance agreement. Op-
eration of this program is based on criteria which will assure that
it is used only where it is determined that it will develop new mar-
ket opportunities and maintain and expand existing world markets
for U.S. agricultural commodities. The program encourages U.S. fi-
nancial institutions to provide financing to those areas where the
institutions would be unwilling to provide financing in the absence
of the CCC guarantees. CCC also provides facilities financing guar-
antees.
The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–508) es-
tablishes the program account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export
guarantee programs are exempt from the requirement of advance
appropriations of budget authority according to section 504(c)(2) of
the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–508). Ap-
propriations to this account will be used for administrative ex-
penses.
TITLE VI
RELATED AGENCY AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is a scientific regu-
latory agency whose mission is to promote and protect the public
health and safety of Americans. FDA’s work is a blend of science
and law. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of
2007 (Public Law 110–85) reaffirmed the responsibilities of the
FDA: to ensure safe and effective products reach the market in a
timely way and to monitor products for continued safety while they
are in use. In addition, the FDA is entrusted with two critical func-
tions in the Nation’s war on terrorism: preventing willful contami-
nation of all regulated products, including food; and improving the
availability of medications to prevent or treat injuries caused by bi-
ological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agents.
The FDA Foods program has the primary responsibility for as-
suring that the food supply, quality of foods, food ingredients, and
dietary supplements are safe, sanitary, nutritious, wholesome, and
honestly labeled and that cosmetic products are safe and properly
labeled. The variety and complexity of the food supply has grown
dramatically while new and more complex safety issues, such as
emerging microbial pathogens, natural toxins, and technological in-
novations in production and processing, have developed. This pro-
gram plays a major role in keeping the U.S. food supply among the
safest in the world.
In January 2011, the Food Safety Modernization Act [FSMA]
(Public Law 111–353) was signed into law. This law enables the
FDA to better protect public health by strengthening the food safe-
ty system. It enables the FDA to focus more on preventing food
safety and feed problems rather than relying primarily on reacting
to problems after they occur. The law also provides the FDA with
new enforcement authorities designed to achieve higher rates of
compliance with prevention- and risk-based food and feed safety
standards and to better respond to and contain problems when
they do occur. The law also gives the FDA important new tools to
hold imported food and feed to the same standards as domestic food
and feed and directs the FDA to build an integrated national food
safety system in partnership with State and local authorities.
The FDA Drugs programs are comprised of four separate areas:
Human Drugs, Animal Drugs, Medical Devices, and Biologics. The
FDA is responsible for the lifecycle of products, including pre-
market review and post-market surveillance of human and animal
drugs, medical devices, and biological products to ensure their safe-
ty and effectiveness. For Human Drugs, this includes assuring that
(115)
116
all drug products used for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment
of disease are safe and effective. Additional procedures include re-
viewing and evaluating investigational new drug applications; eval-
uation of market applications for new and generic drugs and label-
ing and composition of prescription and over-the-counter drugs;
monitoring the quality and safety of products manufactured in, or
imported into, the United States; and regulating the advertising
and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal Drugs and Feeds
program ensures only safe and effective veterinary drugs, intended
for the treatment and/or prevention of diseases in animals and the
improved production of food-producing animals, are approved for
marketing.
The FDA Biologics program assures that blood and blood prod-
ucts, blood test kits, vaccines, and therapeutics are pure, potent,
safe, effective, and properly labeled. The program inspects blood
banks and blood processors; licenses and inspects firms collecting
human source plasma; evaluates and licenses biologics manufac-
turing firms and products; lot releases licensed products; and mon-
itors adverse events associated with vaccine immunization, blood
products, and other biologics.
The FDA Devices and Radiological program ensures the safety
and effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary
human exposure to man-made radiation from medical, occupa-
tional, and consumer products. In addition, the program enforces
quality standards under the Mammography Quality Standards Act
(Public Law 108–365). Medical devices include thousands of prod-
ucts from thermometers and contact lenses to heart pacemakers,
hearing aids, and MRIs. Radiological products include items such
as microwave ovens and video display terminals.
The FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR] in
Jefferson, Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource, conducting
peer-review scientific research that provides the basis for the FDA
to make sound, science-based regulatory decisions through its pre-
market review and post-market surveillance. The research is de-
signed to define and understand the biological mechanisms of ac-
tion underlying the toxicity of products and lead to developing
methods to improve assessment of human exposure, susceptibility,
and risk of those products regulated by the FDA.
In 2009, Congress granted the FDA new authority to regulate
the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products.
The FDA exercises this responsibility by protecting the public
health from the health effects of tobacco, setting scientific stand-
ards and standards for tobacco product review, conducting compli-
ance activities to enforce its authority over tobacco, and conducting
public education and outreach about the health effects of tobacco
products.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
Appropriation User fees Total
Appropriations, 2021 ....................................................................................... 3,201,928 2,674,097 5,876,025
Budget estimate, 2022 .................................................................................... 3,526,928 2,723,229 6,250,157
Committee recommendation ............................................................................
I 3,399,428
I 2,723,229
I 6,122,657
117
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,399,428,000
for salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug Administration.
The Committee also recommends $2,723,229,000 in definite user
fees, including: $1,141,861,000 in Prescription Drug user fee collec-
tions; $241,431,000 in Medical Device user fee collections;
$33,836,000 in Animal Drug user fee collections; $23,137,000 in
Animal Generic Drug user fee collections; $712,000,000 in Tobacco
Product user fee collections; $527,848,000 in Generic Drug user fee
collections; and $43,116,000 in Biosimilar user fee collections. The
Committee recommendation does not include permanent, indefinite
user fees for the Mammography Quality Standards Act; Color Cer-
tification; Export Certification; Priority Review Vouchers Pediatric
Disease; Food and Feed Recall; Food Reinspection; Voluntary
Qualified Importer Program; the Third Party Auditor Program;
Outsourcing Facility; or Over-the-Counter Monograph. The Com-
mittee includes bill language that prohibits the FDA from devel-
oping, establishing, or operating any program of user fees author-
ized by 31 U.S.C. 9701. The Committee recommendation does not
include proposed user fees requested in the President’s budget for
food facility registration and inspection, food import, food contact
substance notification, cosmetics, and international courier imports.
None of these user fee proposals have been authorized by Congress.
The Committee will continue to monitor any action by the appro-
priate authorizing Committees regarding these proposed user fees.
The Committee expects the FDA to continue all projects, activi-
ties, laboratories, and programs as included in fiscal year 2021 un-
less otherwise specified. The Committee provides a net increase of
$17,900,000 for pay costs; $7,500,000 for infrastructure; $8,000,000
for Data Modernization and Enhanced Technology [DMET] New
Era for Smarter Food Safety; $3,000,000 for New Era for Smarter
Food Safety; $7,000,000 for Animal Food Safety Oversight;
$14,050,000 for Maternal and Infant Health; $12,750,000 for
Emerging Chemical and Toxicology Issues; $2,000,000 for Animal
Feed Reviews; $5,000,000 for Standards of Identity; $10,000,000 for
Device Shortages and Supply Chain; $2,300,000 for Medical Prod-
uct Supply Chain; $2,000,000 for Drug Safety Surveillance and
Oversight; $24,000,000 for Opioids; $7,500,000 for Predictive Toxi-
cology Roadmap; $5,000,000 for DMET Medical Product Safety;
$25,000,000 for DMET Enterprise Wide; $15,000,000 for Inspec-
tions; $4,700,000 for the Office of Minority Health and Health Eq-
uity; $3,000,000 for Laboratory Safety; $3,000,000 for the Office of
the Chief Counsel; $500,000 for BioFilm Regulatory Research;
$5,000,000 for Rare Cancers; $5,000,000 for Rare Diseases; and
$8,300,000 for Essential Services.
The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendations, as
compared to the fiscal year 2021 and budget request levels:
118
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2021 Fiscal year 2022 Committee
enacted budget request recommendation
Centers and related field activities:
Foods ........................................................................................... 1,099,160 1,182,085 1,153,405
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN] ..... 343,789 398,906 382,149
Field Activities ................................................................... 755,371 783,179 771,256
Human Drugs .............................................................................. 689,195 774,469 740,401
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER] ........... 510,226 573,081 542,772
Field Activities ................................................................... 178,969 201,388 197,629
Biologics ...................................................................................... 254,138 270,114 271,376
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER] ..... 212,132 222,145 222,119
Field Activities ................................................................... 42,006 47,969 49,257
Animal Drugs .............................................................................. 192,369 231,946 211,135
Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM] ............................... 123,599 146,204 134,838
Field Activities ................................................................... 68,770 85,742 76,297
Medical and Radiological Devices .............................................. 408,108 452,046 431,758
Center for Devices and Radiological Health ..................... 323,103 360,827 342,582
Field Activities ................................................................... 85,005 91,219 89,176
National Center for Toxicological Research ................................ 66,712 76,945 75,180
Other Activities .................................................................................... 194,951 222,528 211,378
Rent and related activities .................................................................. 130,176 150,509 138,509
Rental payments to GSA ...................................................................... 167,119 166,286 166,286
Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority ..... 3,201,928 3,526,928 3,399,428
501(k) Guidance.—The Committee expresses concern that the
510(k) guidance for menstrual products has not been updated since
2005. The Committee directs the FDA to update its guidance, and
if necessary, to publish new guidance inclusive of additional cat-
egories of menstrual products not currently covered by the existing
guidance. This guidance should include recommendations that in-
tentionally added ingredients, including fragrances, for menstrual
products covered under the guidance be disclosed on the label; that
products be tested for common contaminants, and that steps be
taken to eliminate sources of contamination when found; and to im-
plement testing to assess the impact of product use on the body
and microbiomes, including through testing methods approved or
recommended by the agency.
Added Sugar Labeling.—The Committee remains concerned
about potential consumer confusion over FDA nutritional labeling
requirements and guidelines for added sugar for single ingredient
products like maple syrup and honey, where sugar is naturally oc-
curring in the product rather than added to the product. The Com-
mittee notes that the FDA issued guidance to the industry on June
18, 2019, to verify that the phrase ‘‘added sugar’’ is not required
in the regulated portion of the nutrition facts label for these prod-
ucts. This guidance instructed producers that the percent daily
value would be required to appear on the label and allowed for the
voluntary use of a footnote to explain that this refers to a percent
daily value of ‘‘added sugar.’’ The Committee is concerned, and
industry- conducted consumer studies suggest, that continued use
of the term ‘‘added sugar’’ in relation to percent daily value will
mislead consumers to think that sugar has been added to a pure
single-ingredient maple or honey product, and directs the FDA to
continue working with impacted industries to ensure clear and ap-
propriate labeling.
119
Animal Drug Compounding.—The Committee is concerned that
the Guidance for Industry [GFI] #256, Compounding Animal Drugs
from Bulk Drug Substances, issued on November 20, 2019, raises
similar issues to the GFI #230, which has been withdrawn. The
Committee encourages the FDA to draft and finalize guidance on
compounding animal drugs that is consistent with statutory au-
thority and will ensure access to appropriate treatment is available
for veterinarians, animal shelters, zoos and other stakeholders.
Animal Food Ingredients.—The Committee is concerned about
the time associated with the ingredient review and approval proc-
ess, and uniform acceptance of animal food ingredients by the dele-
gated authorities. The Committee is also concerned that the Center
for Veterinary Medicine Policy and Procedures Manual Guide
1240.3605 has not been updated since 1998 and has not kept pace
with science, prohibiting manufacturers of animal food ingredients
from making certain marketing claims about the product’s use be-
cause the Guide’s outdated policy interpretation classifies the claim
to be associated with an animal drug. The Committee directs the
agency to review the Policy and Procedures Manual Guide
1240.3605 for solutions on how these ingredient claims can be regu-
lated as animal food and report back to the Committee within 120
days with their findings. To address these concerns, the Committee
includes $2,000,000 to improve animal food ingredient reviews to
enable innovation and address challenges and opportunities in the
animal food industry.
Animal Product Terminology.—The Committee is concerned
about the increase of products, which do not include meat or egg
products, that are labeled and marketed using animal food product
terminology and related iconography. As the FDA works to mod-
ernize standards of identity, the Committee encourages the agency
to coordinate with USDA to prevent misleading labeling of these
food products.
Autoantibody Qualification.—The appearance of certain islet
autoantibodies in the serum of individuals increases the chance of
developing type 1 diabetes at some point in the future. Therefore,
the Committee encourages the FDA to work with the Type 1 diabe-
tes community on the assessment of potential diabetes biomarkers
related to islet autoimmunity, which might help inform the design
of clinical studies.
Biofilm Regulatory Science Research.—As previously mentioned,
the Committee provides a $500,000 increase for Biofilm Research
and encourages the FDA to continue to invest in research to im-
prove the understanding of biofilms and the regulatory science of
biofilms associated medical devices (especially devices that may be
used multiple times within a healthcare setting), drug delivery,
and public health. The Committee encourages the FDA to meet its
objectives to reduce healthcare associated infections as described in
the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health Regulatory
Science Priorities report and to continue to support the domestic
manufacture of novel medical products that are safe and effective.
The Committee also encourages FDA to engage with institutes of
higher education with research and engineering expertise.
Botanical Dietary Supplements.—The Committee encourages the
FDA to further invest in the science base for regulatory decisions
120
on botanical dietary supplements. Expanding outreach and broad-
ening safety evaluations of botanical supplements will help further
that work. Studies of the interactions between botanical supple-
ments and prescription drugs would help further patient safety and
help inform the FDA’s scientific review of botanical dietary supple-
ments.
Botanical Drugs and Drug Interactions.—The Committee encour-
ages FDA to further invest in research to identify potential drug
interactions with botanical drugs.
Cancer Clinical Trials.—The Committee encourages the FDA to
identify opportunities to make participation in clinical trials less
burdensome for individuals and families, and increase opportuni-
ties to make clinical trials more representative of the overall popu-
lation. The Committee requests that FDA provide this information
within 180 days of enactment.
Cancer Immunotherapy.—The Committee commends the FDA for
its continued efforts to accelerate the review and approval of cell
and gene therapies for cancer, which have provided hope for many
patients when more traditional treatments have failed. Research
suggests that therapies that combine cellular products and other
cancer drugs may prove more effective for some patients, including
those who do not benefit from single-drug treatments. These com-
bination treatments increase the complexity of trial design, espe-
cially regarding treatment sequencing and the number of treat-
ment arms per trial. Therefore, the Committee urges the FDA to
work with and provide guidance to industry and the broader re-
search community on how to standardize clinical trial designs for
cellular therapy treatments combined with other cancer therapies.
This will allow sponsors to streamline trial designs, while still en-
suring adequate safety and maximizing efficacy for patients.
Cannabis and Cannabis Derivatives.—The Committee notes that
budget did not request additional resources for Cannabis and Can-
nabis Derivatives activities, and therefore directs the FDA to main-
tain funding levels to support regulatory activities, including devel-
oping policy, and for the FDA to continue to perform its existing
regulatory responsibilities, including review of product applications,
inspections, enforcement, and targeted research for cannabis-de-
rived substances, such as cannabidiol [CBD]. Within 90 days of en-
actment of this Act, the FDA shall issue a policy of enforcement
discretion with regard to certain products containing CBD meeting
the definition of hemp as defined by section 297A of the Agricul-
tural Marketing Act of 1964 (7 U.S.C. 1639). Such enforcement dis-
cretion shall be in effect until the FDA establishes a process for
stakeholders to notify the FDA of use of CBD in products that in-
clude safety studies for intended use per product and 112 makes
a determination about such product. In addition, the FDA is en-
couraged to consider existing and ongoing medical research related
to CBD that is being undertaken pursuant to an Investigational
New Drug application in the development of a regulatory pathway
for CBD in products under the jurisdiction of the FDA and to en-
sure that any future regulatory activity does not discourage the de-
velopment of new drugs. The Committee also encourages the FDA
to partner with an academic institution to expand sampling studies
of CBD products currently on the market.
121
Centers for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Centers of Excel-
lence.—The Committee is aware of the important contribution of
the FDA CFSAN Centers of Excellence [COEs] program in sup-
porting critical basic research as well as facilitating FSMA imple-
mentation. The Committee encourages the agency to continue to
fully utilize the COEs to accomplish these goals and instructs that
it enhance its level of support for FDA FSMA activities.
Complex Generics.—The Committee continues to be aware of the
challenges associated with the approval of complex generics. To
help reduce the burden of the approval process, the Committee be-
lieves FDA should consider the use of advanced analytic techniques
such as artificial intelligence [AI]. Specifically, AI technology
should be considered that reduces the number of review cycles for
generic drugs by (a) using text analytics to identify deficiencies in
drug applications faster and earlier, and (b) automating the review
of complex supporting materials (both structured data and sup-
porting narrative).
Conflicts of Interest.—The Committee is concerned with reports
on the FDA’s objectiveness in approving new drug applications and
potential conflicts of interest. The FDA exists to be a trusted regu-
latory body to review the merits of drug applications, and as such,
the Committee instructs the Inspector General to review conflicts
of interest between agency employees and companies, including
consulting firms, interested in receiving drug approvals and the
FDAs review of these drugs, and report back to the Committee on
the results of this review.
Corneal Crosslinking.—The Committee remains concerned about
the marketing and use of unapproved drug and device products for
corneal crosslinking procedures and directs the FDA to provide a
briefing on the development of the 503B Bulks List and regulation
of devices intended for corneal crosslinking procedures.
Cyclospora Cayetanensis.—Cyclosporiasis, a severe gastro-enteric
disease affecting roughly 150,000 Americans annually, is caused by
the protozoan parasite Cyclospora cayetanensis and continues to be
a U.S. public health concern with seasonal reported cases rising
during spring and summer months. Compared to other foodborne
pathogens, it’s thought that only a few cells of the parasite can
cause an infection. Once considered a ‘‘tropical’’ pathogen,
Cyclospora has now been detected in several produce items grown
in the United States, requiring growers to take risk mitigation
measures as appropriate. However, there are no known mitigation
measures, and the current inability to grow the organism limits the
ability for researchers to provide answers. Therefore, the Com-
mittee encourages FDA to work with USDA to coordinate and in-
crease research directed at identifying mitigation strategies for
Cyclospora as well as increasing basic Federal research on this dis-
ease.
Decentralized Trials.—The Committee is encouraged by the de-
velopment of novel health digital technologies to facilitate the use
of virtual decentralized clinical trials [DCTs], sometimes referred to
as virtual trials, that would make it easier for patients to partici-
pate in trials, regardless of where they live. Through telemedicine
and digital health technologies, (e.g. connected sensors and direct
data capture tools), DCTs are conducted geographically near the
122
patient. Direct contact with the patient is still maintained re-
motely, but, when appropriate, reducing or eliminating on-site vis-
its has the potential to increase patient convenience and oper-
ational efficiencies in trial conduct. The Committee recommends
that the FDA develop the necessary policy to advance the use of
DCTs while still maintaining quality data necessary for FDA ap-
proval.
Dietary Supplements.—The Committee applauds the FDA’s in-
spection of and enforcement actions against manufacturers of die-
tary supplement products that are adulterated or misbranded prod-
ucts that are contaminated, either intentionally or unintentionally,
with unsafe ingredients. The Committee has been pleased with on-
going interagency collaborations and urges the FDA to continue
working with the Department of Justice to remove illegal dietary
supplements from the market. As previously noted, the Committee
provides a $3,000,000 increase for Dietary Supplements to be used
for enforcement of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education
Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–417), including inspection and enforce-
ment activities.
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.—Several clinical trials for poten-
tial Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy therapies have demonstrated a
small effect over a 1 year period. In order to increase study power
and minimize time on placebo in trials longer than 1 year, the
Committee urges FDA to convene a multi-stakeholder meeting to
evaluate the use of external controls. The Committee encourages
FDA to explore the use of external control arms in novel trial de-
sign.
The Committee is aware of the 2018 Guidance on developing
therapies for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and related
Dystrophinopathies. Given the potential that gene therapies may
hold to treat these devastating diseases, the Committee urges FDA
to consider whether the 2018 Guidance should be modified to re-
flect these developments. Any such effort should involve the rel-
evant experts at both CBER and CDER.
Essential Medicines.—The Committee is concerned about Ameri-
cans’ access to essential medicines, as defined by the FDA’s October
2020 essential medicines and medical countermeasures list. As the
agency in charge of approving drugs, reporting drug shortages, and
protecting public health, the Committee directs the FDA to produce
a report by the end of fiscal year 2022 on domestic and foreign
manufacturing of drugs included on FDA’s list of Essential Medi-
cines and Medical Countermeasures published in October 2020 pur-
suant to Executive Order 13944 based on the manufacturing
amount data submitted by manufacturers pursuant to section 510(j
(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Food Mislabeling.—The Committee is concerned about the pro-
liferation of products marketed using standards of identity for
dairy products that do not contain dairy ingredients and the lack
of enforcement of these products. The Committee directs the FDA
to provide clarity around the appropriate naming of plant-based
dairy alternatives. The Committee further directs the FDA to im-
plement an updated enforcement approach and report to the Com-
mittee within 90 days of enactment of this Act on steps taken to
123
enforce against dairy imitation products marketed using dairy
names.
Food Labeling Accuracy.—The Committee encourages the FDA’s
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition to use technology-
driven audit tools in assessing food labeling accuracy.
Food Traceability.—The Committee recognizes that the ability to
trace back contaminated products is critical to containing food safe-
ty outbreaks, but that challenges associated with tracing these
products through the supply chain continue to persist. While the
traceability from origin holds potential for a range of advancements
in food safety, the Committee recognizes the substantial techno-
logical, logistical, and resource demands underlying this concept.
Therefore, it encourages FDA to engage with stakeholders to evalu-
ate currently available and emerging technologies, barriers to their
widespread adoption, and to utilize pilots, studies, and technology
development competitions to further explore, enhance and expedite
traceability while minimizing the burden of new systems on the
supply chain.
Foreign High Risk Inspections.—Ensuring that the global supply
chain for products regulated by the FDA entering the United
States is complying with U.S. laws and regulations related to safe-
ty and good manufacturing practices is a high priority. Due to lim-
ited resources, the Committee encourages the FDA to focus its in-
spection activities on the highest risk foreign suppliers. The Com-
mittee maintains funding for the evaluation of foreign high-risk
sites to allow the FDA to continue efforts to develop and utilize tar-
geted, risk-based, and efficient models that incorporate commer-
cially available information as appropriate, including onsite facility
verification, about all foreign establishments for the purpose of reg-
ulatory compliance and surveillance of manufacturing practices.
The FDA is directed to provide the Committee with an update on
these efforts, including estimated efficiencies and concerns and
plans to continue or expand these efforts in the future. The funding
can be used to support the Centers’ ongoing effort to improve the
scientific evaluation of manufacturing for risk-based surveillance.
The Committee expects this effort to provide the FDA with data-
driven models that will help it target its overseas inspection activi-
ties in a global economy.
FSMA Outreach for Small Farms.—The Committee expects FDA
to prioritize efforts to provide outreach, training, and technical as-
sistance to farmers for compliance with the FSMA Produce Safety
Rule. The Committee expects CFSAN to provide funding for critical
outreach and training services at not less than the fiscal year 2021
level as the Produce Safety Rule continues to be implemented.
Heavy Metals in Baby Food.—The Committee is concerned that
lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury are often present in dangers
quantities in foods intended for consumption by infants and tod-
dlers. As previously mentioned the Committee provided funding for
Maternal and Infant Health, including $12,930,000 for FDA’s Clos-
er to Zero plan. FDA is encouraged to coordinate with the Depart-
ment of Agriculture to ensure that a wide variety of healthy nutri-
tious foods remain available to participants of Federal nutrition
programs.
124
Human Drug Review Committee.—The Committee encourages
the FDA to work diligently to include no less than two members
with an expertise in the indication the drug is intended to treat or
other relevant rare diseases on each Advisory Committee when
that Committee is reviewing a drug that has been designated as an
Orphan Drug. The Committee also requests that the FDA report
the percentage of recommendations made by Advisory Committees
with respect to orphan drugs that include at least two members
with expertise in the indication the drug is intended to treat or
other relevant rare diseases.
Imported Poppy Seeds.—The Committee is concerned with re-
ports of positive drug tests, addiction, overdose, and death related
to contaminated imported poppy seeds, and directs the agency to
establish a maximum permissible threshold of opiate alkaloid con-
tent for poppy seeds and carry out appropriate regulatory or en-
forcement measures to ensure the safety of poppy seeds.
Inflammatory Bowel Disease Therapies.—The Committee under-
stands that the incidence of IBD in pediatric patients is on the rise
and recognizes that there are currently limited FDA-approved
treatments for this population. This lack of treatments creates bar-
riers to effective care, which can lead to worse health outcomes for
children and adolescents impacted by these conditions. The Com-
mittee is aware of and encourages the FDA to participate in ongo-
ing efforts within the IBD community to streamline the develop-
ment and approval of new pediatric IBD therapies and expand the
indications for therapies approved to treat IBD in adults to chil-
dren, particularly through innovative trial designs that minimize
the burden to pediatric patients and their caregivers and through
the use of real-world evidence to support regulatory decision-mak-
ing.
Infant Formula Reviews.—The Committee is aware that before a
new infant formula (including any infant formula that has had a
major change in its formulation or processing) can be marketed in
the United States, the infant formula manufacturer must provide
FDA with a notification about the proposed infant formula as re-
quired under section 412 of the FFDCA. In late 2020 and early
2021, there was an increase in the number and complexity of infant
formula submissions, resulting in the FDA notifying manufacturers
in early 2021 that an additional 60 days would be necessary to re-
view the submissions, delaying market entry. The Committee is
concerned about these delays and understands that the number of
infant formula notifications continues to rise as well as the com-
plexity of information FDA is requesting to review as part of the
submission, potentially exacerbating the issue and extending the
delays for an unspecified period of time. Therefore, within the pre-
viously mention funds for Maternal and Infant Health, the Com-
mittee provides $1,120,000 for Infant Formula Reviews.
Innovative Glass Packaging.—The Committee directs the FDA to
work with glass packaging suppliers and pharmaceutical manufac-
turers to evaluate and promote streamlined approval requirements
designed to expedite the adoption and use of innovative glass pack-
aging technologies with the capacity to improve product quality, re-
duce product recalls, reduce drug shortages, and protect public
health. Such streamlined approval requirements should address
125
stability testing and other relevant types of data to be submitted
in support of product approval.
International Mail Facilities.—The Committee remains concerned
about the opioid epidemic that has taken the lives of thousands of
Americans. The Committee provides an additional $10,000,000 and
continues to support FDA’s investments in International Mail Fa-
cilities and Ports of Entry to prevent illicit drugs, including unap-
proved and counterfeit pharmaceuticals, from entering the United
States.
Inspections.—The Committee is concerned that the ongoing pan-
demic has forced the FDA to postpone hundreds of facility inspec-
tions, creating a backlog that may delay new drug approvals and
lead to possible shortages of existing medicines. When practicable,
the Committee urges the FDA use the authorities provided to them
under Sec. 704 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [FDCA] to con-
duct remote inspections and evaluations to help ensure drug appli-
cation approvals assessments are not delayed by limitations on in-
person inspections. As previously noted, the Committee provides a
$15,000,000 increase for inspection activities.
ISTAND.—The Committee supports the assessment of non-ani-
mal approaches for qualification within the Innovative Science and
Technology Approaches for New Drugs [ISTAND] pilot program.
The Committee is pleased that ISTAND provides a pathway for
regulatory acceptance of innovative non-animal methods that may
better protect public health, improve the safety and efficacy of drug
development, and reduce animal testing.
Lupus.—The Committee is aware of barriers that have long af-
fected the development of therapeutics for lupus, a disease that pri-
marily targets women. A chronic and complex autoimmune disease,
lupus can affect the joints, skin, brain, lungs, kidneys, and blood
vessels, causing widespread inflammation and tissue damage in the
affected organ. The Committee is pleased that FDA participated in
an externally-led patient-focused drug development meeting with
the lupus community and identified some of these barriers and that
potential treatments are now in clinical trials. The Committee
urges FDA to expedite its ongoing work with the lupus community
to develop solutions to identified barriers that will accelerate devel-
opment of new therapies.
Margarine Definition.—The Committee is aware that the FDA
continues to review standards of identity. The Committee therefore
encourages the FDA to consider revisions to the definition of mar-
garine which will serve consumers by removing outdated and obso-
lete descriptive terminology and allow for the inclusion of addi-
tional nutrients and ingredients, while maintaining a description
that is clear and consistent with FDA intent.
Medical Foods.—The Committee recognizes the unique role med-
ical foods play in the nutritional management of inborn errors of
metabolism and encourages a flexible regulatory process that would
enhance access to safe medical foods for individuals with serious or
life-threatening inborn errors of metabolism. The Committees en-
courages the FDA to continue focusing on this issue.
Medical Gas.—The Committee is concerned that healthcare pro-
viders, consumers, and medical gas manufacturers have been wait-
ing for 42 years for the FDA to follow through on its commitment
126
to issue separate regulations for medical gases since it first com-
mitted to doing so in the 1978 final rulemaking on current good
manufacturing practices. The FDA has missed the statutory dead-
lines for medical gas rulemaking required in section 1112 of Food
and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Public Law
112–144) and section 756 of the Fiscal Year 2017 Consolidated Ap-
propriations Act (Public Law 115–31). Therefore, the Committee di-
rects the FDA to issue the final separate regulations required by
the Fiscal Year 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law
115–31). Should the FDA not issue proposed regulations by Decem-
ber 31, 2021, the agency shall submit a report to the Committee
explaining the status of the rulemaking and reasons for delay.
Menthol Cigarettes.—The Committee understands that FDA re-
sponded to a Citizen Petition calling for the prohibition of menthol
as characterizing flavor in cigarettes on April 29, 2021. In 2018,
FDA indicated that the agency would initiate a rulemaking to pro-
hibit menthol cigarettes. The Committee encourages the agency to
take action on this issue.
Nanotechnology.—The Committee recognizes the increased capa-
bilities that the FDA has developed to study environment, health,
and safety of nanomaterials within FDA’s Jefferson Laboratory
Campus, including NCTR, and its consolidated headquarters at
White Oak, Maryland. The Committee expects the FDA to continue
to support collaborative research with universities and industry on
the toxicology of nanotechnology products and processes in accord-
ance with the National Nanotechnology Initiative Environment,
Health, and Safety Research Strategy, as updated in October 2011.
New Era of Smarter Food Safety.—The Committee applauds the
FDA for launching the initiative to bring together data from sev-
eral agencies to enable the agency to identify and predict
vulnerabilities in the food supply chain and inform resource alloca-
tion decisions to keep facilities open and workers safe. As pre-
viously mentioned, the Committee provides an additional
$3,000,000 to support this initiative.
Opioid Epidemic.—For the past two decades, the FDA has ap-
proved new drug applications for opioids following completion of
clinical trials using enriched enrollment, randomized, withdrawal
[EERW] designs. EERW studies exclude patients who do not tol-
erate or respond well to the investigational drug prior to random-
ization. After randomization, patients remain on the investigational
drug or they are tapered to placebo. FDA should ensure that sci-
entific experts have the opportunity to review the methodology
EERWs use to approve new opioids for uses that are both safe and
effective. The Commissioner is directed to conduct a study to re-
view EERW study designs used in the approval of new prescription
opioids for chronic pain.
OTC Switch.—The Committee is concerned with the multiple
delays in FDA’s promulgation of a proposed regulation that may
broaden the types of products that may be approved for use in a
nonprescription setting. The Agency initiated its Nonprescription
Drug Safe Use Regulatory Expansion initiative in 2013 and issued
draft guidance in 2018 as a first step, promising sponsors and pa-
tients additional regulatory options through rulemaking in the
127
near future. The Committee strongly encourages the Agency to
issue this important proposed rule as soon as possible
Oversight Activities.—The Committee provides $1,500,000 for the
HHS Office of Inspector General specifically for oversight of FDA
activities.
Pancreatitis Guidance Document.—The Committee notes the im-
portant ongoing work to ensure safe and effective therapies become
available for patients impacted by pancreatitis. The Committee
urges FDA to build on recent community engagement efforts, in-
cluding the externally-led Patient-Focused Drug Development
meeting on this topic by continuing engagement with stakeholders
in this area with the aim of developing and releasing Guidance for
Industry in this area to help stimulate additional activity and to
further guide ongoing efforts, including those facilitated by mean-
ingful scientific progress at NIH and NIDDK
Pathogen Reduction and Deferral Policies for Blood Donation.—
The Committee is pleased that FDA plans to continue to expand
its use of real-world evidence, including the Transfusion Trans-
missible Infections Monitoring System [TTIMS], and encourages
greater investment in real-world evidence to inform its policies con-
cerning blood donor deferral policies and the safety of the U.S.
blood supply. The Committee also encourages FDA to prioritize fur-
ther investments in pathogen reduction technologies to reduce the
risk of transfusion-transmitted infections and safeguard the blood
supply. The Committee directs the FDA to swiftly collect, analyze,
and act on the necessary scientific data to update its blood product
donor deferral policies to ensure that its recommendations are
based on current science and on individualized risk assessment
rather than community-wide prevalence while maintaining the
safety of the blood supply and not impeding HIV prevention efforts
including uptake of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP], and to
work with the Secretary and appropriate agency and stakeholder
partners to ensure that any revisions to its policies are appro-
priately communicated to stakeholders and potential donors.
Patient Experience Information.—The Committee supports the
FDA’s efforts to implement policies to promote public access to in-
formation about how patient experience information is factored into
the review of approved products. The Committee requests that
within 60 days of enactment of this Act, FDA submit to the Com-
mittee a report providing an update on the agency’s efforts to de-
velop and issue guidance documents to provide uniform methodolo-
gies to capture and measure patient experiences in clinical trials,
as required under Sec. 3004 of Public Law 114–255. The Com-
mittee urges the FDA to expedite the completion and release of all
relevant guidance documents. The Committee directs the FDA to
collaborate with stakeholders by holding no less than two stake-
holder meetings within 90 days from the enactment of the Act to
identify specific tools for screening, identification, reporting, consid-
eration, and labeling of patient experience data in clinical trials of
a drug or biological product.
Not later than 1 year after enactment of this Act, the FDA shall
submit to the Committee a report describing FDA’s efforts to en-
gage stakeholders and solicit feedback on patient experience data
in research, including the current definition of patient experience
128
data used by industry; patient experience measures that are ac-
ceptable to the FDA; the extent to which patient experience data
informs clinical trial design, trial endpoint development and selec-
tion, and regulatory reviews; and the feasibility and impact of re-
quiring the inclusion of patient experience data in clinical trials of
a drug or biological development.
Pediatric Device Consortia Grants.—Pediatric Device Consortia
grants fund consortia to assist innovators in developing medical
and surgical devices designed for the unique needs of children,
which often go unmet by devices currently available on the market.
The Committee is pleased that the FDA-funded Pediatric Device
Consortia have assisted in advancing the development of more than
1,400 potential pediatric medical devices since 2009. The Com-
mittee encourages the FDA to fund the program at its authorized
level in fiscal year 2022.
Pediatric Labeling.—The Committee continues to be concerned
that Over-the-Counter [OTC] single-ingredient acetaminophen does
not contain weight-based dosing instructions for children ages 6
months to 2 years despite the recommendations of the FDA Non-
prescription Drugs Advisory Committee and Pediatric Advisory
Committee in 2011 that data supported this information being
added to the labeling. The Committee is concerned that the lack of
dosing information for this vulnerable population may lead to dos-
ing errors, adverse events, and inadequate treatment of fever and
pain. As such, the FDA is urged to provide to the Committee with
an update no later than 240 days after enactment of this Act on
the timing and progress of developing a plan and timetable for up-
dating the monograph labeling for acetaminophen-containing prod-
ucts under the OTC Drug Review to include weight-based dosing
instructions for children ages 6 months to 2 years.
Pesticide Residues in Imported Foods.—The Committee is con-
cerned that imported human food continues to have significantly
higher pesticide violation rates than domestically produced food.
The most recent FDA report for fiscal year 2017 found that viola-
tion rates for imported food were 2.5 times higher than domestic
food, which is consistent with fiscal year 2012 through 2016 trends
and is an outcome of the FDA targeting specific commodities and
countries that might warrant special attention based upon histori-
cally high violations rates and trends. The Committee directs the
FDA to continue to partner with State inspection services and de-
velop emerging technologies to enhance the imported food sampling
efforts. Additionally, the Committee encourages the FDA to conduct
a multi-year data review to better identify imported food samples
that are more likely to have pesticide violations. The FDA shall
treat products that are among those that are more likely to have
pesticide violations as warranting special attention with higher pri-
ority for increased inspections. The Committee notes that, while
some imported products may not have the 10 percent violation rate
that may cause FDA to select the commodities for special attention
in the annual pesticide report, certain imported products in the
2017 report had disproportionately higher violation rates than do-
mestic products. The FDA shall review data in its 2019 report to
determine whether it is appropriate to modify the special attention
list to include imported products that have a violation rate of less
129
than 10 percent but for which imported products have significantly
higher violation rates than identical domestic products. Therefore,
the Committee encourages the FDA to work with partners such as
the U.S. International Trade Commission and to conduct a multi-
year data review to better identify imported food samples that are
more likely to have pesticide violations.
PFAS in Cosmetics.—The Committee is concerned about the
presence of perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl [PFAS] substances in
cosmetics. The Committee directs the FDA to develop a plan out-
lining research needed to inform regulatory decisionmaking, includ-
ing potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally
added PFAS substances in cosmetics. Not later than 90 days after
enactment, FDA will brief the committee on the research plan, po-
tential regulatory options, and discuss considerations and antici-
pated challenges with issuing such a proposed rule.
Predictive Toxicology Roadmap.—The Committee is aware that,
pursuant to its Predictive Toxicology Roadmap, FDA is offering
training in new predictive toxicology methods and encouraging
sponsors to submit scientifically valid approaches for using a new
method early in the regulatory process. The Committee directs
FDA to produce a report no later than 180 days after enactment
of this Act detailing metrics regarding the number of trainings
held, the number of participants that attended each training, and
the agendas corresponding with each training. Additionally, the
Committee directs the FDA to include in the report any methods
used to measure the success of the trainings and continuous learn-
ing programs.
Premium Cigars.—The Committee notes that the issuance of reg-
ulations under the Family Smoking Prevention & Tobacco Control
Act may place burdens on the legal production of premium cigars
that were in production before this rule was finalized. The Com-
mittee directs FDA to periodically report back to Congress on the
status of premarket review with regard to premium cigars. The
Committee encourages the FDA to re-evaluate these regulations.
Further, the agency may want to develop recommendations that
consider the concerns of premium cigar manufacturers while taking
a risk based approach to public health. The Committee directs the
FDA to provide a report to the Committee with its recommendation
within 90 days, including a recommendation on whether or not to
exempt premium cigars from this rule.
Promoting Domestic Manufacturing.—The Committee supports
the agency’s work to promote the domestic manufacturing of drug
and biological products and encourages the FDA to increase its ef-
forts to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to adopt advanced
manufacturing technologies that have the potential to improve
product quality. The Committee directs the FDA to brief the Com-
mittee on its efforts to promote advanced manufacturing tech-
nologies.
Rare Cancers.—The FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence is com-
mended for its leadership in streamlining the development of can-
cer therapies and promoting adaptive clinical trials and use of real
world evidence. However, there continues to be very few rare can-
cer patients enrolled in clinical trials and a significant development
gap for rare cancer therapies as almost 80 percent of all patients
130
who lack an FDA-targeted therapy are rare cancer patients. As
previously noted, the Committee provides an additional $5,000,000
to address these gaps, streamline resources, hire rare cancer ex-
perts, improve recruitment of rare cancer patients through clinical
trials that reduce barriers to participation uniquely faced by rare
cancer patients, low-income patients, those living in rural commu-
nities and people of color, facilitate the use of novel small patient
population clinical trial strategies, conduct natural history studies,
and advance the field of research overall, mirroring the efforts of
the National Cancer Institute’s Developmental Therapeutics Pro-
gram. FDA is directed to build lines of communications and process
with NCI to expedite rare cancer therapeutic development. Fur-
ther, the Committee directs the Agency to issue a report no later
than 60 days after enactment on what the Agency has done to ad-
dress rare cancer, the participation of rare cancer patients in clin-
ical trials, work with the NCI National Clinical Trial Network, and
recommendations on what is needed to increase patient enrollment
and accelerate rare cancer drug development.
Rare Diseases.—The Committee is concerned that FDA’s efforts
to harness the revolutionary potential of cell and gene therapy are
not sufficient to meet the expectations of patients or keep pace with
global competition for this cutting edge science. As previously
noted, the Committee included a $5,000,000 for Rare Diseases, in-
cluding funding for the CBER Office of Tissues and Advanced
Therapies to increase staff capacity and leverage internal CDER
expertise to close this gap in understanding the science and chal-
lenges in rare disease and precision medicine drug development,
and to engage in active dialogue, timely responses and product spe-
cific guidance as necessary to efficiently advance products all the
way through later stages of development via the most appropriate
facilitative regulatory approaches.
Ready-to-Eat [RTE] Foods.—The Committee is aware that the
FDA is in the process of finalizing guidance regarding Listeria
monocytogenes [Lm] in RTE foods. Reducing incidents of listeriosis
is an important health goal, and the Committee supports efforts to
accomplish this objective. The Committee urges the FDA to con-
sider all available information relevant to the risk of listeriosis, in-
cluding available exposure models, outbreak data, dose-response
models, and existing risk assessments in determining a reliable
and achievable Lm action level for frozen foods.
Shellfish Safety.—The Committee urges the FDA to complete the
single laboratory validation of the liquid chromatography mass
spectrometry [LC–MS]-based method for detecting brevetoxins as-
sociation with neurotoxic shellfish poisoning in molluscan shellfish.
The Committee further urges the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation
Conference to adopt the FDA’s proposal for the LC–MS method for
brevetoxin testing of shellfish as an Approved Method under the
National Shellfish Sanitation Program.
Shrimp Importation Inspections.— The Committee maintains
funding for the Shrimp Importation Pilot Program and directs the
FDA to provide the annual reports to the Committee related to
FDA’s oversight of the safety of shrimp products imported into the
United States.
131
Sodium.—As the agency considers next steps in finalizing short-
term sodium reduction guidance, the Committee urges FDA to
monitor progress towards the short-term targets and engage with
industry stakeholders on implementation of the guidance. The
Committee acknowledges the investment and technology challenges
that exist for food manufacturers in reaching the proposed long-
term reduction targets, including those that jeopardize food safety
and integrity of food products, and believes it is critical that FDA
demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of the long-term tar-
gets before moving forward.
Sunscreen Labeling Regulations.—The Committee is encouraged
that the FDA has proposed regulations dealing with the sunscreen
monograph and urges the FDA to issue a revised sunscreen order
in accordance with the procedures described in section 505G(b)(2)
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Public Law 75–717)
as required by section 3854(c) of the CARES Act The Committee
is pleased that the proposed sunscreen monograph aims to make
sunscreens more effective and safer, and that the proposal address-
es issues related to maximum Sun Protection Factor [SPF] and
sunscreen sprays. The Committee encourages FDA to educate
stakeholders about its administrative order process and ensure
that any final order related to sunscreen ingredients balances the
value of currently marketed sunscreens as a proven skin cancer
prevention tool. The Committee also encourages FDA to coordinate
with the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Math
[NASEM] in coordination with EPA as directed by House Report
116–446 to help inform its upcoming study on sunscreen’s effects
on the environment and the public health as authorized under the
Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, and to commu-
nicate its jurisdiction over the regulatory status of over-the-counter
drug products.
Temporomandibular Disorder.—The Committee is encouraged by
the work of the TMJ Patient-Led RoundTable, which took the first
steps in formalizing a proposed interagency research plan and has
called repeatedly for a transformation of TMD research. The Com-
mittee supports ongoing collaborations among medical product cen-
ters and with external stakeholders related to the development of
treatments for TMD, and urges FDA to work with Federal part-
ners, including the National Institutes of Health, to improve care
for individuals with TMD.
Tobacco Issues.—The Committee remains deeply concerned about
underage nicotine vaping and data from the National Youth To-
bacco Survey showing increase in e-cigarette use among youth, and
urges FDA to use its full authority to address this serious public
health problem. The Committee is concerned about the continued
lack of effective tobacco cessation products, less harmful alter-
natives, and Electronic Nicotine Delivery System [ENDS] cessation
treatments for adolescents. Not later than 180 days after enact-
ment of this Act, the FDA shall provide an update to the Com-
mittee on its effort to provide additional guidance to drug manufac-
turers on developing tobacco cessation and ENDS cessation prod-
ucts for youth and its premarket reviews of e-cigarette and other
deemed tobacco product applications, as well as provide an analysis
of proven, effective programs to support underage tobacco preven-
132
tion and adolescent cessation. The Committee urges FDA to deny
authorization for any product whose public health risks outweigh
the benefits, including initiation by youth or non-tobacco con-
sumers.
Vibrio.—The Committee is aware of the public health challenge
related to the naturally occurring bacteria called Vibrio
parahaemolyticus that can accumulate in shellfish and believes
that more scientific research is necessary to develop proper controls
that will reduce the risk to consumers and sustain a healthy do-
mestic shellfish industry. The Committee encourages the FDA to
increase funding for research into Vibrio illnesses associated with
the consumption of raw molluscan shellfish, improve risk assess-
ment models, and develop improved rapid detection methods for
virulent Vibrio strains.
White Oak.—The FDA’s growing staff will require the GSA to
lease additional office locations for the FDA until GSA can imple-
ment the 2018 Federal Research Master Plan for the White Oak
Campus expansion. To determine the lowest cost technically ac-
ceptable for a prospectus lease, The GSA and FDA should consider
the effect of local travel on staff productivity, adjacency to existing
FDA-occupied leases, and the cost of lost productivity when evalu-
ating the costs of lease proposals.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $12,788,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 30,788,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,288,000
FDA maintains offices and staff in 49 States and in the District
of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including field laboratories and spe-
cialized facilities, as well as the National Center for Toxicological
Research complex. Repairs, modifications, improvements, and con-
struction to FDA headquarters and field facilities must be made to
preserve the properties, ensure employee safety, meet changing
program requirements, and permit the agency to keep its labora-
tory methods up to date.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,288,000 for
FDA buildings and facilities.
This funding shall be used to upgrade FDA facilities and labora-
tories which are currently below public safety standards and in-
capable of performing agency requirements. The Committee is
aware that several FDA-owned facilities need significant renova-
tions and repairs. The Committee understands that high-quality,
reliable buildings are a necessity to support the FDA’s mission-crit-
ical work.
FDA INNOVATION ACCOUNT, CURES ACT
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $70,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 50,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 50,000,000
The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the FDA as author-
ized in the 21st Century Cures Act (Public Law 114–255).
133
INDEPENDENT AGENCY
FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Limitation, 2021 ..................................................................................... $80,870,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 84,200,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 84,200,000
The Farm Credit Administration [FCA] is the independent agen-
cy in the executive branch of the Government responsible for the
examination and regulation of the banks, associations, and other
institutions of the Farm Credit System.
Activities of FCA include the planning and execution of examina-
tions of Farm Credit System institutions and the preparation of ex-
amination reports. FCA also promulgates regulations, establishes
standards, enforces rules and regulations, and approves certain ac-
tions of the institutions.
The administration and the institutions under its jurisdiction
now operate under authorities contained in the Farm Credit Act of
1971 (Public Law 92–181), effective December 10, 1971. Public Law
99–205, effective December 23, 1985, restructured FCA and gave
the agency regulatory authorities and enforcement powers.
The Act provides for the farmer-owned cooperative system to
make sound, adequate, and constructive credit available to farmers
and ranchers and their cooperatives, rural residences, and associa-
tions and other entities upon which farming operations are depend-
ent, and to modernize existing farm credit law to meet current and
future rural credit needs.
The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (Public Law 100–233) au-
thorized the formation of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Cor-
poration [FAMC] to operate a secondary market for agricultural
and rural housing mortgages. FCA, under section 8.11 of the Farm
Credit Act of 1971 (Public Law 92–181), as amended, is assigned
the responsibility of regulating this entity and assuring its safe and
sound operation.
Expenses of FCA are paid by assessments collected from the
Farm Credit System institutions and by assessments to the FAMC.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation of $84,200,000 on ad-
ministrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration.
Eligibility Criteria for Outside Directors.—The Committee is con-
cerned with the FCA final rule on eligibility criteria for outside di-
rectors, which expands the list of persons who are excluded from
serving as outside directors. The Farm Credit Act of 1971 (Public
Law 92–181) specifies that outside directors must not be a director,
officer, employee, agent, or stockholder of a System institution.
This is accurately reflected under FCA’s existing regulations at 12
CFR 611.220. The Committee believes the new rule extends unnec-
essarily beyond the requirements of the Act and creates a number
of unnecessary restrictions and implementation challenges that
must be addressed. The new rule would prevent many qualified in-
dividuals from serving and would even exclude a number of cur-
rently serving outside directors from being reappointed. These indi-
134
viduals have valuable skills and give voice to underrepresented
communities of borrowers. As such, the Committee expects FCA to
pause to reconsider the rule in light of these and other concerns ex-
pressed since the rule was initially approved by the Board of Direc-
tors. One of the concerns the Committee expects FCA to consider
is ensuring that those currently serving in outside director posi-
tions are not adversely impacted by the rule, including future re-
appointment by their respective stockholder-elected boards.
Hemp-Based Products.—The Committee recognizes the growing
interest for U.S. hemp and hemp-based products for a variety of
uses and directs FCA to work with the institutions under its juris-
diction to provide access to guaranteed loans for hemp producers
and businesses.
TITLE VII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
The Committee recommends the following provisions:
Section 701. This section includes language regarding passenger
motor vehicles.
Section 702. This section includes language regarding the Work-
ing Capital Fund.
Section 703. This section limits the funding provided in the bill
to 1 year, unless otherwise specified.
Section 704. This section includes language regarding indirect
costs.
Section 705. This section includes language regarding Rural De-
velopment programs.
Section 706. This section includes language regarding new infor-
mation technology.
Section 707. This section includes language regarding conserva-
tion programs.
Section 708. This section includes language regarding Rural Util-
ities Service program eligibility.
Section 709. This section includes language regarding informa-
tion technology expenses.
Section 710. This section includes language regarding first-class
travel.
Section 711. This section includes language regarding the Com-
modity Credit Corporation.
Section 712. This section includes language regarding advisory
committees.
Section 713. This section includes language regarding informa-
tion technology systems.
Section 714. This section includes language regarding section 32
activities.
Section 715. This section includes language regarding user fee
proposals without offsets.
Section 716. This section includes language regarding the re-
programming of funds and notification requirements.
Section 717. This section includes language regarding fees for the
guaranteed business and industry loan program.
Section 718. This section includes language regarding the appro-
priations hearing process.
Section 719. This section includes language regarding pre-
packaged news.
Section 720. This section includes language regarding details and
assignments of Department of Agriculture employees.
Section 721. This section includes language regarding spending
plans.
(135)
136
Section 722. This section includes language regarding a rescis-
sion of funds.
Section 723. This section includes language regarding Rural De-
velopment programs.
Section 724. This section includes language regarding loans and
loan guarantees.
Section 725. This section includes language regarding credit card
refunds.
Section 726. This section includes language regarding SNAP.
Section 727. This section includes language regarding housing
loan programs.
Section 728. This section includes language regarding new user
fees.
Section 729. This section includes language regarding dried spent
grain products.
Section 730. This section includes language regarding disclosure
of information for pharmaceuticals.
Section 731. This section includes language regarding APHIS in-
spections.
Section 732. This section includes language regarding Rural De-
velopment programs.
Section 733. This section includes language regarding animal
welfare.
Section 734. This section includes language regarding domestic
preference.
Section 735. This section includes language regarding lobbying.
Section 736. This section includes language regarding Rural De-
velopment programs.
Section 737. This section includes language regarding Farm to
School programs.
Section 738. This section includes language regarding the Food
and Drug Administration.
Section 739. This section includes language regarding a NIFA
pilot program.
Section 740. This section includes language regarding school
meals program.
Section 741. This section includes language regarding hemp.
Section 742. This section includes language regarding gene edit-
ing.
Section 743. This section includes language regarding Agricul-
tural Research Service.
Section 744. This section includes language regarding FDA sea-
food advisory.
Section 745. This section includes language regarding matching
requirement.
Section 746. This section includes language regarding housing.
Section 747. This section includes language regarding fluid milk.
Section 748. This section includes language regarding Farming
Opportunities Training and Outreach.
Section 749. This section includes language regarding tribal dem-
onstration.
Section 750. This section includes language regarding Water
Bank.
Section 751. This section includes language regarding REAP.
137
Section 752. This section includes language regarding potable
water.
Section 753. This section includes language regarding mitigation
banking.
Section 754. This section includes language regarding the Food
and Drug Administration.
Section 755. This section includes language regarding watershed
programs.
Section 756. This section includes language regarding school
meals.
Section 757. This section includes language regarding school
meals.
Section 758. This section includes language regarding broadband.
Section 759. This section includes language regarding pollinator
research.
Section 760. This section includes language regarding hemp.
Section 761. This section includes language regarding SNAP.
Section 762. This section includes language regarding NOAA
working group.
Section 763. This section includes language regarding school
meals.
Section 764. This section includes language regarding flavored
milk.
Section 765. This section includes language regarding Rural De-
velopment.
Section 766. This section includes language regarding the Good-
fellow Federal Center.
Section 767. This section includes language regarding
congongrass.
Section 768. This section includes language regarding meat and
poultry facilities.
Section 769. This section includes language regarding a technical
fix.
Section 770. This section includes language regarding Institute
for Rural Partnership.
Section 771. This section includes language regarding a library.
Section 772. This section includes language regarding University
of Vermont.
Section 773. This section includes language regarding disaster
assistance.
Section 774. This section includes language regarding horse
slaughter.
Section 775. This section includes language regarding the Food
Safety and Inspection Service.
Section 776. This section includes language regarding the South-
west Border Regional Commission.
PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY
During fiscal year 2022, for purposes of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177) or the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act
of 1987 (Public Law 100–119), the following information provides
the definition of the term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ for de-
partments and agencies under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee. The term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’
shall include the most specific level of budget items identified in
the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administra-
tion, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2022, and the ac-
companying report.
If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the Presi-
dential order, departments and agencies shall apply any percentage
reduction required for fiscal year 2022 pursuant to the provisions
of Public Law 99–177 or Public Law 100–119 to all items specified
in the explanatory notes submitted to the Committees on Appro-
priations of the House and Senate in support of the fiscal year 2022
budget estimates, as amended, for such departments and agencies,
as modified by congressional action, and in addition:
For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall include
specific research locations as identified in the explanatory notes.
For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the definition
shall include individual flood prevention projects as identified in
the explanatory notes and individual operational watershed
projects as summarized in the notes.
For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include indi-
vidual, regional, State, district, and county offices.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE
STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports accom-
panying general appropriations bills identify each recommended
amendment which proposes an item of appropriation which is not
made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty stipu-
lation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate dur-
ing that session.
The Committee is filing an original bill, which is not covered
under this rule, but reports this information in the spirit of full dis-
closure.
The Committee recommends funding for the following programs
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2022:
—Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program
—Broadband Loan and Grant Pilot Program
—Child Nutrition Programs
—Child Nutrition Program State Administrative Expenses
(138)
139
—Summer Food Service Program
—Access to Local Food: Farm to School Program
—National School Lunch Act-Information Clearinghouse
—School Meals Program-Compliance and Accountability
—Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants
and Children
—Farmers Market Nutrition Program
—Livestock Mandatory Reporting
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE
STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on August 4, 2021, the
Committee ordered favorably reported an original bill (S. 2599)
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes, pro-
vided, that the bill be subject to amendment and that any amend-
ment increasing budget authority be offset by a reduction of equal
or greater budget authority, by a recorded vote of 25–5, a quorum
being present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Leahy Mr. McConnell
Ms. Murray Mr. Kennedy
Mrs. Feinstein Mr. Braun
Mr. Durbin Mr. Hagerty
Mr. Reed Mr. Rubio
Mr. Tester
Mrs. Shaheen
Mr. Merkley
Mr. Coons
Mr. Schatz
Ms. Baldwin
Mr. Murphy
Mr. Manchin
Mr. Van Hollen
Mr. Heinrich
Mr. Shelby
Ms. Collins
Ms. Murkowski
Mr. Graham
Mr. Blunt
Mr. Moran
Mr. Hoeven
Mr. Boozman
Mrs. Capito
Mrs. Hyde-Smith
140
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE
STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on
a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part
of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof
which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of
that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and
of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by
stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appro-
priate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which
would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form
recommended by the Committee.’’
In compliance with this rule, changes in existing law proposed to
be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing law to be omitted
is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and
existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman.
TITLE 7—AGRICULTURE
CHAPTER 38—DISTRIBUTION AND MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS
SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS
§ 1632b. Agriculture Innovation Center Demonstration Pro-
gram
(a) Purpose
* * * * * * *
(f) Use of funds
An eligible entity to which a grant is made under the Program
may use the grant only for the following purposes (but only to the
extent that the use is not described in øsection 210A(d)(2)¿ section
210A(d)(5)(D) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 51—SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
§ 2018. Approval of retail food stores and wholesale food
concerns
(a) Authorization to accept and redeem benefits
* * * * * * *
(i) Review of program operations
(1) Review by the Secretary
* * * * * * *
(2) Limitation
Nothing in this subsection shall authorize the Secretary to
deny any application for continued authorization, any application
for authorization, or any request to withdraw the authorization of
any such facility, program, or arrangement based on a determina-
141
tion that residents of any such facility or entity are residents of an
institution prior to øDecember 31, 2021¿ December 31, 2022.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 88—RESEARCH
SUBCHAPTER VII—MISCELLANEOUS RESEARCH PROVISIONS
§ 5940. Legitimacy of industrial hemp research
* * * * * * *
EDITORIAL NOTES
EFFECTIVE DATE OF REPEAL
Pub. L. 115–334, title VII, §7605(b), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat.
4829 , as amended by Pub. L. 116–159, div. A, §122, Oct. 1, 2020,
134 Stat. 714 ; Pub. L. 116–260, div. A, title VII, §782, Dec. 27,
2020, 134 Stat. 1230 , provided that: ‘‘Effective on øJanuary 1,
2022¿ January 1, 2023, section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014
(7 U.S.C. 5940) is repealed.’’
----
TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 13—SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS
§ 1758. Program requirements
(a) Nutritional requirements
* * * * * * *
(h) Food safety
(1) In general
* * * * * * *
(3) Audits and reports by States
øFor fiscal year 2021¿ For fiscal year 2022, each State shall
annually—
* * * * * * *
(4) Audit by the Secretary
øFor fiscal year 2021¿ For fiscal year 2022, the Secretary shall
annually audit State reports of food safety inspections of schools
submitted under paragraph (3).
* * * * * * *
§ 1769g. Information clearinghouse
(a) In general
* * * * * * *
(d) Funding
Out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to the Secretary to provide
to the organization selected under this section, to establish and
maintain the information clearinghouse, $200,000 for each of fiscal
142
years 1995 and 1996, $150,000 for fiscal year 1997, $100,000 for
fiscal year 1998, $166,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through
2004, and $250,000 for each of fiscal years ø2010 through 2022¿
2010 through 2023. The Secretary shall be entitled to receive the
funds and shall accept the funds, without further appropriation.
----
CONSOLIDATION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2021,
PUBLIC LAW 116–260
DIVISION N—ADDITIONAL
CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE AND RELIEF
TITLE I—NUTRITION AND AGRICULTURE RELIEF
SUBTITLE B—AGRICULTURE
CHAPTER 1—AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
SEC. 764. GRANTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO MEAT AND POULTRY FA-
CILITIES TO ALLOW FOR INTERSTATE SHIPMENT.
* * * * * * *
(d) GRANT REQUIREMENTS.
(1) AMOUNT.—* * *
* * * * * * *
(3) MATCHING FUNDS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—* * *
(B) EXCEPTION.—The Secretary shall not require any
recipient of a grant under this section to provide matching
funds with respect to a grant awarded in fiscal year 2021
and fiscal year 2022.
143
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC.
308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
Budget authority Outlays
Committee Amount Committee Amount
allocation 1 in bill allocation 1 in bill
Comparison of amounts in the bill with the subcommittee allo-
cation for 2022: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Devel-
opment, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agen-
cies:
Mandatory ............................................................................ .................... 156,104 .................... 2 142,759
Discretionary ........................................................................ .................... 25,855 .................... 2 25,102
Defense ....................................................................... .................... .................... .................... NA
Non-defense ................................................................ .................... 25,855 NA NA
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2022 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 3 151,397
2023 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 8,535
2024 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 1,947
2025 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 885
2026 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 760
Financial assistance to State and local governments for
2022 ......................................................................................... NA 48,446 NA 2 34,697
1 As of the date that this bill was reported, there is no section 302(a) allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2022.
2 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
3 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
NOTE.—Pursuant to section 1002(b)(3)(B) of the 21st Century Cures Act (Public Law 114–255), $50,000,000 in budget authority and the
resulting outlays do not count for the purposes of estimates under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 or the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Pursuant to section 4112(b) of H. Con. Res. 71 (115th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018, $7,045,000,000 in budget authority and the resulting outlays do not count for the purposes of
section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
144
DISCLOSURE OF CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING
ITEMS
The Constitution vests in the Congress the power of the purse.μ
The Committee believes strongly that Congress should make the
decisions on how to allocate the people’s money. As defined in Rule
XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the term ‘‘congression-
ally directed spending item’’ means a provision or report language
included primarily at the request of a Senator, providing, author-
izing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget
authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a con-
tract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expendi-
ture with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or
congressional district, other than through a statutory or adminis-
trative, formula-driven, or competitive award process. For each
item, a Member is required to provide a certification that neither
the Member nor the Member’s immediate family has a pecuniary
interest in such congressionally directed spending item. Such cer-
tifications are available to the public on the website of the Senate
Committee on Appropriations (https://
www.appropriations.senate.gov/congressionally-directed-spending-
requests). Following is a list of congressionally directed spending
items included in the Senate recommendation discussed in this re-
port, along with the name of each Senator who submitted a request
to the Committee of jurisdiction for each item so identified. Neither
the Committee recommendation nor this report contains any lim-
ited tax benefits or limited tariff benefits as defined in rule XLIV.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS
Account Recipient Location Description Amount Provided Requestor(s)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ............................. Arkansas Department of Agriculture ..... Arkansas ................ Feral Swine Management ...................... 650,000 Boozman
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ............................. Nevada Department of Agriculture ........ Nevada ................... Horse Management ................................ 500,000 Cortez Masto, Rosen
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ............................. City of Chicago ...................................... Illinois .................... O’Hare Federal Inspection Station ......... 250,000 Durbin
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ............................. New York Farm Viability Institute ......... New York ................ New York Dairy Farms Antimicrobial 180,000 Gillibrand, Schumer
Stewardship.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ............................. Hawaii Department of Land and Nat- Hawaii .................... Invasive Species Surveillance ............... 600,000 Hirono, Schatz
ural Resources.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ............................. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture .... Oklahoma ............... Biorepository .......................................... 594,000 Inhofe
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ............................. Alaska Division of Agriculture ............... Alaska .................... Statewide Pest Surveys ......................... 100,000 Murkowski
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ............................. Maui Office of Economic Development Hawaii .................... Kula Agricultural Fencing ...................... 600,000 Schatz
Conservation Operations ............................................................ Natural Resources Conservation Service Connecticut ............ Long Island Sound Coastal Zone Soil 5,000,000 Blumenthal, Murphy
Survey.
Conservation Operations ............................................................ Western Reserve Land Conservancy ...... Ohio ....................... Tree Restoration ..................................... 1,500,000 Brown
Conservation Operations ............................................................ Ohio Energy and Advanced Manufac- Ohio ....................... Reduce Runofff Contamination in the 263,000 Brown
turing Center. Great Lakes.
Conservation Operations ............................................................ Chesapeake Bay Foundation ................. Pennsylvania .......... Susquehanna River Basin Restoration 2,184,000 Cardin, Casey
Pequea Creek Watershed Plan. 145
Conservation Operations ............................................................ Chesapeake Bay Foundation ................. Pennsylvania .......... Halfmoon Creek Watershed Manage- 1,063,000 Casey
ment Plan.
Conservation Operations ............................................................ John G. Shedd Aquarium ....................... Illinois .................... River Habitat Restoration and Con- 1,000,000 Durbin
servation Initiative.
Conservation Operations ............................................................ One Generation–Indigenous Farm Hub New Mexico ............ Sustainable and Regenerative agri- 100,000 Heinrich
culture practices.
Conservation Operations ............................................................ New Mexico State University ................. New Mexico ............ Carbon Management and Soil Health ... 995,000 Heinrich, Luján
Conservation Operations ............................................................ The National Latino Farmers and New Mexico ............ Education and agricultural training 50,000 Heinrich, Luján
Ranchers Trade Assoc.. outreach.
Conservation Operations ............................................................ Vermont Land Trust ............................... Vermont ................. Farmland Futures Fund ......................... 5,000,000 Leahy
Conservation Operations ............................................................ Northern Forest Center .......................... Vermont ................. Infrastructure Projects ........................... 500,000 Leahy
Conservation Operations ............................................................ Richmond Land Trust ............................ Vermont ................. Gillett Dam Replacement ...................... 250,000 Leahy
Conservation Operations ............................................................ Rio de Chama Acequia Association ...... New Mexico ............ Water Irrigation Infrastructure .............. 82,000 Luján
Conservation Operations ............................................................ Deschutes River Conservancy ................ Oregon ................... McKay Irrigation Efficiency Project ........ 750,000 Merkley, Wyden
Conservation Operations ............................................................ Scituate Rhode Island Land Trust ........ Rhode Island ......... Esek Hopkins Reforestation ................... 290,000 Reed
Conservation Operations ............................................................ Interlace Commons ................................ Vermont ................. Regenerative Soil Capacity and Im- 500,000 Sanders
proved Soil Health.
Conservation Operations ............................................................ African Alliance of Rhode Island .......... Rhode Island ......... Technical Assistance for Beginning 84,000 Whitehouse
Farmers.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued
Account Recipient Location Description Amount Provided Requestor(s)
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program ..... West Virginia University ........................ West Virginia ......... Distance Learning .................................. 328,000 Capito
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program ..... Illini Community Hospital ...................... Illinois .................... Rural Telemedicine Initiative ................. 115,000 Durbin
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program ..... Ben Archer Health Center ...................... New Mexico ............ Ben Archer Health Center Telemedicine 104,000 Heinrich, Luján
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program ..... New Mexico State Library ...................... New Mexico ............ Library .................................................... 890,000 Heinrich, Luján
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program ..... Shepherd University ............................... West Virginia ......... Dual Enrollment Hub Sites .................... 111,000 Capito, Manchin
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program ..... Pocahontas County Board of Education West Virginia ......... Distance Learning .................................. 462,000 Capito, Manchin
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program ..... Vermont Program for Quality Health Vermont ................. Telehealth Services ................................ 500,000 Sanders
Care.
General Provision ....................................................................... University of Wisconsin ......................... Wisconsin ............... Plant Germplasm Research Facility ...... 39,700,000 Baldwin
General Provision ....................................................................... Shelburne Farms .................................... Vermont ................. National Farm to School Institute ......... 5,000,000 Leahy
General Provision ....................................................................... University of Vermont ............................ Vermont ................. Institute for Rural Partnerships ............ 10,000,000 Leahy
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Southwestern Wisconsin Community Ac- Wisconsin ............... Food Pantry Upgrades ........................... 54,000 Baldwin
tion Program.
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Glidden Area Ambulance Service .......... Wisconsin ............... Ambulance Services ............................... 151,000 Baldwin
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Memorial Hospital of Lafayette County Wisconsin ............... Hospital Replacement Facility ............... 4,000,000 Baldwin
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwe College ....... Wisconsin ............... College Student Housing ....................... 5,000,000 Baldwin
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Friends of the Sparta Free Library ........ Wisconsin ............... Library .................................................... 250,000 Baldwin 146
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Frederic Arts .......................................... Wisconsin ............... Accessibility Updates ............................. 23,000 Baldwin
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Ute Mountain Ute Tribe ......................... Colorado ................. Kwiyagat Community Academy K 2,000,000 Bennet
Through 5 Education Building.
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Moffat County ........................................ Colorado ................. Moffat County Courthouse ..................... 4,650,000 Bennet
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Lake County Board of County Commis- Colorado ................. Community Justice Center ..................... 3,575,000 Bennet, Hickenlooper
sioners.
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Norwescap Foodbank ............................. New Jersey ............. Foodbank Expansion .............................. 1,050,000 Booker
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Borough of Penns Grove ........................ New Jersey ............. Facility Improvements ............................ 413,000 Booker
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Mead Township ...................................... Ohio ....................... Government Services Building ............... 75,000 Brown
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Great Lakes Community Action Partner- Ohio ....................... Fremont Senior Center Expansion ......... 184,000 Brown
ship.
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Arrowhead Joint Fire District ................. Ohio ....................... Fire District Expansion .......................... 74,000 Brown
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Sandy Creek Joint Fire District .............. Ohio ....................... Fire District Ladder Truck ...................... 195,000 Brown
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Montville Fire Department ..................... Ohio ....................... Fire Department Upgrades .................... 637,000 Brown
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Carroll Township Police Department ..... Ohio ....................... Police Department Building Project ...... 160,000 Brown
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... City of Fremont ...................................... Ohio ....................... Fremont Community Amphitheater 1,608,000 Brown
Project.
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Dylan Jude Harrell DIPG Foundation ..... Washington ............ Community Center ................................. 1,275,000 Cantwell
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe .................... Washington ............ Computer Lab ........................................ 210,000 Cantwell
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Columbia County Health System ........... Washington ............ Childcare Center .................................... 413,000 Cantwell
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Port Angeles Food Bank ........................ Washington ............ Foodbank Expansion .............................. 175,000 Cantwell
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Calliope Project Inc ............................... Delaware ................ Capital Improvements ........................... 100,000 Carper, Coons
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Commission on Economic Opportunity .. Pennsylvania .......... Foodbank Expansion .............................. 250,000 Casey
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Town of Corinna .................................... Maine ..................... Fire Station Improvements .................... 1,725,000 Collins
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Town of Washburn ................................. Maine ..................... Public Safety Building Improvements ... 750,000 Collins
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Town of Machiasport ............................. Maine ..................... Public Works Building Improvements .... 1,125,000 Collins
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Town of Rumford ................................... Maine ..................... Fire Station Improvements .................... 1,000,000 Collins
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Harrison Food Bank ............................... Maine ..................... Foodbank Expansion .............................. 388,888 Collins, King
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Katherine Shaw Bethea Hospital ........... Illinois .................... Facility Improvements ............................ 334,000 Duckworth, Durbin
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Los Amigos de Guadalupe ..................... California ............... Facility Improvements ............................ 1,700,000 Feinstein
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Del Norte County Board of Supervisors California ............... Facility Improvements ............................ 3,080,000 Feinstein
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... County of Nevada .................................. California ............... North San Juan Fire Suppression Sys- 1,050,000 Feinstein, Padilla
tem.
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... County of Inyo ........................................ California ............... Inyo County Eastern Sierra Small Busi- 205,000 Feinstein, Padilla
ness Center.
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Essex County Board of Supervisors ....... New York ................ County Agriculture and Youth Center ... 270,000 Gillibrand
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Hunter Foundation Inc ........................... New York ................ Food and Agriculture Culinary Hub ....... 500,000 Gillibrand, Schumer
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Royalton-Hartland Central School ......... New York ................ Outdoor Learning Lab ............................ 268,000 Gillibrand, Schumer
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... City of Glens Falls ................................. New York ................ City Hall Restoration ............................. 439,000 Gillibrand, Schumer
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... City of Sunland Park ............................. New Mexico ............ Public Safety Complex ........................... 950,000 Heinrich 147
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Village of Questa ................................... New Mexico ............ Fire Station ............................................ 1,000,000 Heinrich, Luján
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Fort Lewis College ................................. Colorado ................. Regional Agriculture and Food Security 159,999 Hickenlooper
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Montrose County .................................... Colorado ................. Courthouse Renovation .......................... 7,725,000 Hickenlooper
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Wai’anae Community Re–Development Hawaii .................... Post Harvest Processing Facility ........... 896,000 Hirono, Schatz
Corporation.
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Blue Ridge Discovery Center ................. Virginia .................. Historic Konnarock Training School ....... 50,000 Kaine
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... City of Superior ...................................... Arizona ................... Workforce, Entrepreneurship, and Inno- 1,988,000 Kelly, Sinema
vation Center.
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Maine 4–H Foundation .......................... Maine ..................... Innovation Lab and Learning Center .... 450,000 King
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Millinocket Memorial Library ................. Maine ..................... Library .................................................... 56,000 King
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Town of St. Albans ................................ Maine ..................... Town Hall Improvements ....................... 23,000 King
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... City of New London ............................... Minnesota .............. Library and City Hall ............................. 665,000 Klobuchar
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... City of Dilworth ...................................... Minnesota .............. Dilworth Fire Hall ................................... 975,000 Klobuchar, Smith
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior .. Minnesota .............. Community Center Upgrades ................. 157,000 Klobuchar, Smith
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... City of Chisholm .................................... Minnesota .............. Public Safety Building ........................... 3,500,000 Klobuchar, Smith
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Prairie Pines Childcare Center .............. Minnesota .............. Childcare Facility ................................... 418,000 Klobuchar, Smith
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Southwestern Vermont Medical Center Vermont ................. Downtown Child Care Center ................ 750,000 Leahy
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Town of Groton ...................................... Vermont ................. Community Center Waste Water Project 200,000 Leahy
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Rupert Village Trust .............................. Vermont ................. The Sheldon Store Restoration .............. 120,000 Leahy
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued
Account Recipient Location Description Amount Provided Requestor(s)
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Town of St. Johnsbury ........................... Vermont ................. Three Rivers Lamoille Valley Rail Trail 543,000 Leahy
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Jeudevine Memorial Library ................... Vermont ................. Library .................................................... 600,000 Leahy
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Catamount Film and Arts ...................... Vermont ................. Facility Improvements ............................ 109,000 Leahy
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Village of Questa ................................... New Mexico ............ Municipal Building Expansion ............... 350,000 Luján
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Village of Wagon Mound ....................... New Mexico ............ Senior Center ......................................... 164,000 Luján
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... The Ridgeley Volunteer Fire Company West Virginia ......... Fire Station ............................................ 875,000 Manchin
No. 1.
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Town of Anmoore ................................... West Virginia ......... Safety Complex Stair Replacement ....... 55,000 Manchin, Capito
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Detroit Lake Foundation ........................ Oregon ................... Community Center in Response to 500,000 Merkley, Wyden
Wildfire Recovery.
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Sherman County Court .......................... Oregon ................... Broadband Solar Trailers ....................... 50,000 Merkley, Wyden
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Friends of Fossil Library ........................ Oregon ................... Library .................................................... 50,000 Merkley, Wyden
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Warm Springs Community Action Team Oregon ................... Warm Springs Commissary Project ....... 450,000 Merkley, Wyden
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Community Connection of Northeast Or- Oregon ................... Food Bank .............................................. 50,000 Merkley, Wyden
egon.
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Oregon Food Bank ................................. Oregon ................... Food Bank .............................................. 100,000 Merkley, Wyden
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Main Street Development ...................... Kansas ................... Public Building Renovations ................. 100,000 Moran 148
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Matsu Food Bank ................................... Alaska .................... Food Bank Renovations ......................... 1,500,000 Murkowski
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Sitka Sound Science Center .................. Alaska .................... Educational Facility Renovations .......... 840,000 Murkowski
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Flint River Fresh .................................... Georgia .................. Community Food Space Expansion ........ 299,000 Ossoff
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... North San Joaquin Water Conservation California ............... South System Groundwater Recharge 395,000 Padilla
District. Improvement.
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Cass County ........................................... Michigan ................ Cass County Courthouse Renovation .... 1,500,000 Peters
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... City of Three Rivers ............................... Michigan ................ Hospital Redevelopment ........................ 750,000 Peters
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Town of Warren ...................................... Rhode Island ......... Fire and EMS Center ............................. 2,000,000 Reed
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Town of Richmond ................................. Rhode Island ......... Police Station Renovations .................... 150,000 Reed
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... City of Central Falls .............................. Rhode Island ......... Central Falls Ralph Holden Community 2,000,000 Reed, Whitehouse
Center.
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Alburgh Family Clubhouse ..................... Vermont ................. Childcare and Early Education Expan- 189,000 Sanders
sion.
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Town of Castleton .................................. Vermont ................. Library .................................................... 125,000 Sanders
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... The Center for Discovery ....................... New York ................ Greenhouse ............................................ 605,000 Schumer
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Waverly Central School District ............. New York ................ Chemung Center for Innovation ............ 2,750,113 Schumer
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Town of North Collins ............................ New York ................ Community Center ................................. 89,000 Schumer
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... YMCA of Plattsburgh ............................. New York ................ Family YMCA .......................................... 1,973,000 Schumer
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... M–ARK Project Inc ................................. New York ................ Child Care Facility ................................. 88,000 Schumer
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... BluePrint Geneva ................................... New York ................ Healthy Neighborhoods Project .............. 44,000 Schumer
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Herkimer County .................................... New York ................ Day Care ................................................ 315,000 Schumer
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Mid-State Community Development New Hampshire ..... Children’s Learning Center .................... 200,000 Shaheen
Corporation.
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Mt. Washington Valley Economic Coun- New Hampshire ..... Facility Improvements ............................ 200,000 Shaheen
cil.
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Town of Northumberland ....................... New Hampshire ..... Northumberland Public Safety Building 200,000 Shaheen
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Town of Swanzey ................................... New Hampshire ..... Swanzey Center Fire Station .................. 200,000 Shaheen
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Town of Campton .................................. New Hampshire ..... Campton Emergency Communications 175,000 Shaheen
Initiative.
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... City of Claremont .................................. New Hampshire ..... Fire Sprinkler System ............................. 100,000 Shaheen
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Town of Chino Valley ............................. Arizona ................... Rodeo Drive Improvements .................... 240,000 Sinema
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... The Link of Northern Kandiyohi County Minnesota .............. Food Pantry ............................................ 193,000 Smith
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... City of Little Falls .................................. Minnesota .............. Childcare Facility ................................... 825,000 Smith
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Capital Area United Way ....................... Michigan ................ Mobile Wi-Fi Unit ................................... 76,000 Stabenow
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... The Good Stuff ....................................... Maryland ................ Job Training and Technical Assistance 138,000 Van Hollen
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Town of Pulaski ..................................... Virginia .................. Calfee Community Center ...................... 38,000 Warner
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... City of Eatonton ..................................... Georgia .................. Eatonton City Center Community Facil- 250,000 Warnock
ity. 149
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... County of Warren ................................... Georgia .................. Volunteer Fire Department ..................... 1,400,000 Warnock
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Fuerza Laboral ....................................... Rhode Island ......... Cooperative Hub .................................... 157,000 Whitehouse
Rural Community Facilities Program ......................................... Cowden Street Collaborative dba Segue Rhode Island ......... Modular Building Construction .............. 250,000 Whitehouse
Institute.
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ............................. Mississippi Watershed Operations ........ Mississippi ............. Flood mitigation ..................................... 8,400,000 Hyde–Smith
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ............................. Ochoco Irrigation District ...................... Oregon ................... Ochocco Irrigation District Watershed 4,875,000 Merkley, Wyden
Projects.
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ............................. East Fork Irrigation District ................... Oregon ................... East Fork Irrigation Modernization ........ 2,500,000 Merkley, Wyden
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ............................. Wallowa Lake Irrigation District ............ Oregon ................... Wallowa Lake Dam Rehabilitation 2,000,000 Merkley, Wyden
Project.
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ............................. North Sector Upper Walnut Floodwater Kansas ................... Flood mitigation ..................................... 450,000 Moran
Retarding Dam No. 21.
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ............................. Kickapoo Tribe Water Supply Project ..... Kansas ................... Preliminary studies of new water sup- 50,000 Moran
ply reservoir.
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ............................. City of Cranston and Town of Johnston Rhode Island ......... Pocasset River Flood Damage Reduc- 5,000,000 Reed
tion.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022
[In thousands of dollars]
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (∂ or ¥)
2021 Budget Committee
Item appropriation estimate recommendation 2021 Budget
appropriation estimate
TITLE I—AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Processing, Research, and Marketing
Staff Offices
Office of the Secretary
Office of the Secretary ......................................................................................................................................................... 5,101 14,801 5,703 ∂602 ¥9,098
Office of Homeland Security ................................................................................................................................................ 1,324 13,429 4,749 ∂3,425 ¥8,680
Office of Tribal Relations ..................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 2,860 1,025 ∂1,025 ¥1,835
Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement .................................................................................................................. 7,002 13,294 6,044 ¥958 ¥7,250
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration .......................................................................................................... 881 1,399 1,649 ∂768 ∂250 150
Departmental Administration ............................................................................................................................................... 21,440 26,001 21,782 ∂342 ¥4,219
Subtotal ....................................................................................................................................................................... 22,321 27,400 23,431 ∂1,110 ¥3,969
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations and Intergovernmental Affairs ......................................... 3,908 4,480 4,480 ∂572 ..........................
Office of Communications .................................................................................................................................................... 7,342 10,509 7,484 ∂142 ¥3,025
Total, Office of the Secretary ...................................................................................................................................... 46,998 86,773 52,916 ∂5,918 ¥33,857
Executive Operations
Office of the Chief Economist .............................................................................................................................................. 24,192 31,050 25,499 ∂1,307 ¥5,551
Office of Hearings and Appeals ........................................................................................................................................... 15,394 16,173 16,173 ∂779 ..........................
Office of Budget and Program Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 9,629 12,760 12,310 ∂2,681 ¥450
Subtotal ....................................................................................................................................................................... 49,215 59,983 53,982 ∂4,767 ¥6,001
Office of the Chief Information Officer ................................................................................................................................ 66,814 101,001 84,746 ∂17,932 ¥16,255
Office of the Chief Financial Officer ................................................................................................................................... 6,109 7,118 7,118 ∂1,009 ..........................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights ............................................................................................................... 908 1,426 1,426 ∂518 ..........................
Office of Civil Rights ........................................................................................................................................................... 22,789 29,328 29,328 ∂6,539 ..........................
Office of Safety, Security, and Protection ............................................................................................................................ 23,218 27,034 23,306 ∂88 ¥3,728
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities .................................................................................................................................... 108,124 133,443 313,443 ∂205,319 ∂180,000
Hazardous materials management ...................................................................................................................................... 6,514 6,545 6,545 ∂31 ..........................
Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 99,912 106,309 106,309 ∂6,397 ..........................
Office of the General Counsel .............................................................................................................................................. 45,390 60,723 60,723 ∂15,333 ..........................
Office of Ethics .................................................................................................................................................................... 4,184 4,277 4,277 ∂93 ..........................
Total, Executive Operations ......................................................................................................................................... 433,177 537,187 691,203 ∂258,026 ∂154,016
Total, Staff Offices ...................................................................................................................................................... 480,175 623,960 744,119 ∂263,944 ∂120,159
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics ............................................................................ 809 1,327 1,327 ∂518 ..........................
Office of the Chief Scientist ....................................................................................................................................... .......................... 5,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,000
Economic Research Service .................................................................................................................................................. 85,476 90,594 90,794 ∂5,318 ∂200
National Agricultural Statistics Service ............................................................................................................................... 183,921 193,662 191,662 ∂7,741 ¥2,000
Census of Agriculture .................................................................................................................................................. (46,300) (46,300) (46,850) (∂550) (∂550)
Agricultural Research Service
Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,491,784 1,849,590 1,675,040 ∂183,256 ¥174,550 151
Buildings and facilities ........................................................................................................................................................ 35,700 45,405 45,405 ∂9,705 ..........................
Total, Agricultural Research Service ........................................................................................................................... 1,527,484 1,894,995 1,720,445 ∂192,961 ¥174,550
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
National Institute of Food and Agriculture .......................................................................................................................... .......................... 1,955,863 .......................... .......................... ¥1,955,863
Research and education activities ...................................................................................................................................... 992,642 .......................... 1,057,420 ∂64,778 ∂1,057,420
Native American Institutions Endowment Fund ................................................................................................................... (11,880) (11,880) (11,880) .......................... ..........................
Extension activities .............................................................................................................................................................. 538,447 .......................... 559,400 ∂20,953 ∂559,400
Integrated activities ............................................................................................................................................................. 39,000 .......................... 40,000 ∂1,000 ∂40,000
Total, National Institute of Food and Agriculture ....................................................................................................... 1,570,089 1,955,863 1,656,820 ∂86,731 ¥299,043
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs ............................................................................. 809 1,327 1,577 ∂768 ∂250
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,064,179 1,102,222 1,118,642 ∂54,463 ∂16,420
Congressionally Directed Spending Requests ............................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,474 ∂3,474 ∂3,474
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (∂ or ¥)
2021 Budget Committee
Item appropriation estimate recommendation 2021 Budget
appropriation estimate
Buildings and facilities ........................................................................................................................................................ 3,175 3,175 3,175 .......................... ..........................
Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .................................................................................................... 1,067,354 1,105,397 1,125,291 ∂57,937 ∂19,894
Agricultural Marketing Service
Marketing Services ............................................................................................................................................................... 188,358 213,157 231,063 ∂42,705 ∂17,906
(Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees collected) ............................................................................................ (61,227) (61,786) (61,786) (∂559) ..........................
Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (Section 32):
Permanent, Section 32 ................................................................................................................................................ 1,359,864 1,391,211 1,391,211 ∂31,347 ..........................
Marketing agreements and orders (transfer from Section 32) ......................................................................... (20,705) (20,705) (20,817) (∂112) (∂112) 152
Payments to States and Possessions ......................................................................................................................... 1,235 1,235 4,000 ∂2,765 ∂2,765
Limitation on inspection and weighing services ........................................................................................................ (55,000) (55,000) (55,000) .......................... ..........................
Total, Agricultural Marketing Service program ...................................................................................................... 1,665,684 1,722,389 1,743,060 ∂77,376 ∂20,671
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety ..................................................................................................................... 809 1,327 1,327 ∂518 ..........................
Food Safety and Inspection Service ..................................................................................................................................... 1,075,703 1,165,589 1,153,064 ∂77,361 ¥12,525
Lab accreditation fees ................................................................................................................................................ (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) .......................... ..........................
Total, title I, Agricultural Programs ....................................................................................................................... 7,542,086 8,644,644 8,312,700 ∂770,614 ¥331,944
(By transfer) ............................................................................................................................................................ (20,705) (20,705) (20,817) (∂112) (∂112)
(Limitation on administrative expenses) ................................................................................................................ (116,227) (116,786) (116,786) (∂559) ..........................
TITLE II—Farm Production and Conservation Programs
Farm Production Programs
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation ............................................................................... 916 1,437 1,687 ∂771 ∂250
Farm Production and Conservation Business Center .......................................................................................................... 231,302 238,177 238,177 ∂6,875 ..........................
(by transfer from CCC) ............................................................................................................................................... (60,228) (60,228) (60,228) .......................... ..........................
(by transfer from Food for Peace (Public Law 480)) ................................................................................................. (112) .......................... .......................... (¥112) ..........................
(by transfer from export loans) ................................................................................................................................... (318) .......................... .......................... (¥318) ..........................
Total, FPAC Business Center (including transfers) ................................................................................................ 291,960 298,405 298,405 ∂6,445 ..........................
Farm Service Agency
Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,142,924 1,175,670 1,178,324 ∂35,400 ∂2,654
(by transfer from ACIF) ............................................................................................................................................... (294,114) (294,114) (294,114) .......................... ..........................
Subtotal, transfers .................................................................................................................................................. (294,114) (294,114) (294,114) .......................... ..........................
Total, Salaries and expenses (including transfers) ............................................................................................... 1,437,038 1,469,784 1,472,438 ∂35,400 ∂2,654
State mediation grants ........................................................................................................................................................ 6,914 6,914 7,000 ∂86 ∂86
Grassroots source water protection program ....................................................................................................................... 6,500 6,500 6,500 .......................... ..........................
Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers ............................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,000 ∂3,000 ∂3,000
Dairy indemnity program ...................................................................................................................................................... 500 500 500 .......................... .......................... 153
Subtotal, Farm Service Agency ................................................................................................................................... 1,156,838 1,189,584 1,195,324 ∂38,486 ∂5,740
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund [ACIF] Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Farm ownership loans:
Direct ......................................................................................................................................................... (2,500,000) (2,800,000) (2,800,000) (∂300,000) ..........................
Guaranteed ................................................................................................................................................ (3,300,000) (3,500,000) (3,500,000) (∂200,000) ..........................
Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................. (5,800,000) (6,300,000) (6,300,000) (∂500,000) ..........................
Farm operating loans:
Direct ......................................................................................................................................................... (1,633,333) (1,633,333) (1,633,333) .......................... ..........................
Unsubsidized guaranteed .......................................................................................................................... (2,118,482) (2,118,482) (2,118,482) .......................... ..........................
Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................. (3,751,815) (3,751,815) (3,751,815) .......................... ..........................
Emergency loans ................................................................................................................................................ (37,668) (37,668) (37,668) .......................... ..........................
Indian tribe land acquisition loans ................................................................................................................... (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) .......................... ..........................
Conservation loans:
Guaranteed ................................................................................................................................................ (150,000) (150,000) (150,000) .......................... ..........................
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (∂ or ¥)
2021 Budget Committee
Item appropriation estimate recommendation 2021 Budget
appropriation estimate
Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans .................................................................................................... (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) .......................... ..........................
Boll weevil eradication loans .................................................................................................................... (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) .......................... ..........................
Relending program loans .......................................................................................................................... (33,693) (33,693) (61,425) (∂27,732) (∂27,732)
Total, Loan authorizations .................................................................................................................................. (9,858,176) (10,358,176) (10,385,908) (∂527,732) (∂27,732)
Loan subsidies:
Farm operating loans:
Direct .................................................................................................................................................................. 38,710 40,017 40,017 ∂1,307 ..........................
Unsubsidized guaranteed ................................................................................................................................... 23,727 16,524 16,524 ¥7,203 .......................... 154
Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 62,437 56,541 56,541 ¥5,896 ..........................
Emergency Loans ................................................................................................................................................ 207 267 267 ∂60 ..........................
Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans ............................................................................................................. 742 407 407 ¥335 ..........................
Relending program loans ................................................................................................................................... 5,000 2,743 5,000 .......................... ∂2,257
Total, Loan subsidies and grants ................................................................................................................. 68,386 59,958 62,215 ¥6,171 ∂2,257
ACIF administrative expenses:
Administrative Expenses ............................................................................................................................................. 307,344 314,772 314,772 ∂7,428 ..........................
(Program Loan Cost Expenses) .......................................................................................................................... (13,230) (20,658) (20,658) (∂7,428) ..........................
(Transfer out to FSA Salaries and expenses) .................................................................................................... (¥294,114) (¥294,114) (¥294,114) .......................... ..........................
Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account ...................................................................................... 375,730 374,730 376,987 ∂1,257 ∂2,257
(Loan authorizations) .................................................................................................................................................. (9,858,176) (10,358,176) (10,385,908) (∂527,732) (∂27,732)
Total, Farm Service Agency ......................................................................................................................................... 1,532,568 1,564,314 1,572,311 ∂39,743 ∂7,997
Risk Management Agency
RMA Salaries and Expenses ................................................................................................................................................. 60,131 69,207 67,700 ∂7,569 ¥1,507
Total, Farm Production Programs ............................................................................................................................... 1,824,917 1,873,135 1,879,875 ∂54,958 ∂6,740
Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Private Lands Conservation Operations ...................................................................................................................... 832,727 886,285 918,353 ∂85,626 ∂32,068
Congressionally Directed Spending Requests .................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 19,611 ∂19,611 ∂19,611
Farm Security and Rural Investment Program:
Administrative expenses–FPAC Business Center (transfer out) ........................................................................ (¥60,228) (¥60,228) (¥60,228) .......................... ..........................
Total, Conservation operations ...................................................................................................................... 832,727 886,285 937,964 ∂105,237 ∂51,679
Watershed flood and prevention operations ...................................................................................................... 175,000 175,000 175,000 .......................... ..........................
Congressionally Directed Spending Requests ............................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 23,275 ∂23,275 ∂23,275
Watershed rehabilitation program ..................................................................................................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 .......................... ..........................
Healthy forests reserve program ........................................................................................................................ .......................... 20,000 .......................... .......................... ¥20,000
Urban Agriculture Program ................................................................................................................................ .......................... 9,458 .......................... .......................... ¥9,458
155
Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service .......................................................................................................... 1,017,727 1,100,743 1,146,239 ∂128,512 ∂45,496
Corporations
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation:
Federal crop insurance corporation fund .................................................................................................................... 8,748,000 9,660,000 9,660,000 ∂912,000 ..........................
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund:
Reimbursement for net realized losses ...................................................................................................................... 31,830,731 25,915,000 25,915,000 ¥5,915,731 ..........................
Hazardous waste management (limitation on expenses) ........................................................................................... (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) .......................... ..........................
Total, Corporations .................................................................................................................................................. 40,578,731 35,575,000 35,575,000 ¥5,003,731 ..........................
Total, title II, Farm Production and Conservation Programs ................................................................................. 43,421,375 38,548,878 38,601,114 ¥4,820,261 ∂52,236
(By transfer) ............................................................................................................................................................ (354,772) (354,342) (354,342) (¥430) ..........................
(Transfer out) .......................................................................................................................................................... (¥354,342) (¥354,342) (¥354,342) .......................... ..........................
TITLE III—RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development ......................................................................................................... 812 1,330 1,580 ∂768 ∂250
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (∂ or ¥)
2021 Budget Committee
Item appropriation estimate recommendation 2021 Budget
appropriation estimate
Rural Development
Rural development expenses:
Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 264,024 367,447 363,922 ∂99,898 ¥3,525
(by transfer from RHIF) ...................................................................................................................................... (412,254) (412,254) (412,254) .......................... ..........................
(by transfer from RDLFP) ................................................................................................................................... (4,468) (4,468) (4,468) .......................... ..........................
(by transfer from RETLP) ................................................................................................................................... (33,270) (33,270) (33,270) .......................... ..........................
Subtotal, transfers from program accounts .................................................................................................. 449,992 449,992 449,992 .......................... ..........................
Total, Rural development expenses ............................................................................................................................ 714,016 817,439 813,914 ∂99,898 ¥3,525 156
Rural Housing Service
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Single family direct (Sec 502) ........................................................................................................................... (1,000,000) (1,500,000) (1,250,000) (∂250,000) (¥250,000)
Unsubsidized guaranteed .......................................................................................................................... (24,000,000) (30,000,000) (30,000,000) (∂6,000,000) ..........................
Subtotal, Single family ......................................................................................................................... 25,000,000 31,500,000 31,250,000 ∂6,250,000 ¥250,000
Housing repair (Sec 504) ................................................................................................................................... (28,000) (28,000) (28,000) .......................... ..........................
Rental housing (Sec 515) .................................................................................................................................. (40,000) (40,000) (92,000) (∂52,000) (∂52,000)
Multi-family housing guarantees (Sec 538) ...................................................................................................... (230,000) (230,000) (250,000) (∂20,000) (∂20,000)
Site development loans (Sec 524) ..................................................................................................................... (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) .......................... ..........................
Single family housing credit sales .................................................................................................................... (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) .......................... ..........................
Self-help housing land development housing loans (Sec 523) ........................................................................ (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) .......................... ..........................
Farm Labor Housing (Sec 514) .......................................................................................................................... (28,000) (28,000) (28,000) .......................... ..........................
Total, Loan authorizations ...................................................................................................................................... 25,346,000 31,846,000 31,668,000 ∂6,322,000 ¥178,000
Loan subsidies:
Single family direct (Sec 502) ........................................................................................................................... 55,400 27,900 23,250 ¥32,150 ¥4,650
Housing repair (Sec 504) ................................................................................................................................... 2,215 484 484 ¥1,731 ..........................
Rental housing (Sec 515) .................................................................................................................................. 6,688 3,576 8,225 ∂1,537 ∂4,649
Multi-family housing revitalization program ..................................................................................................... .......................... 32,000 32,000 ∂32,000 ..........................
Farm labor housing (Sec514) ............................................................................................................................ 5,093 2,831 2,831 ¥2,262 ..........................
Self-Help Land Development Housing Loans (Sec523) ..................................................................................... 269 55 55 ¥214 ..........................
Site Development Loans (Sec524) ..................................................................................................................... 355 206 206 ¥149 ..........................
Total, Loan subsidies .............................................................................................................................................. 70,020 67,052 67,051 ¥2,969 ¥1
Farm labor housing grants ......................................................................................................................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 .......................... ..........................
RHIF administrative expenses ..................................................................................................................................... 412,254 412,254 412,254 .......................... ..........................
(transfer out to Rural Development) ........................................................................................................................... (¥412,254) (¥412,254) (¥412,254) .......................... ..........................
Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund program ...................................................................................................... 492,274 489,306 489,305 ¥2,969 ¥1
(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................................ (25,346,000) (31,846,000) (31,668,000) (∂6,322,000) (¥178,000)
Rental assistance program: 157
Rental assistance (Sec 521) .............................................................................................................................. 1,410,000 1,450,000 1,450,000 ∂40,000 ..........................
Rural housing vouchers ..................................................................................................................................... .......................... 45,000 .......................... .......................... ¥45,000
Subtotal, Rental Assistance Program ............................................................................................................ 1,410,000 1,495,000 1,450,000 ∂40,000 ¥45,000
Multi-Family Housing Revitalization Program Account:
Rural housing voucher program ................................................................................................................................. 40,000 .......................... .......................... ¥40,000 ..........................
Multi-family housing revitalization program .............................................................................................................. 28,000 .......................... .......................... ¥28,000 ..........................
Rural Housing Vouchers .............................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 45,000 ∂45,000 ∂45,000
Mutual and self–help housing grants ........................................................................................................................ 31,000 32,000 32,000 ∂1,000 ..........................
Rural housing assistance grants ................................................................................................................................ 45,000 45,000 45,000 .......................... ..........................
Rural community facilities program account:
Loan authorizations:
Community facility:
Direct ................................................................................................................................................ (2,800,000) (2,800,000) (2,800,000) .......................... ..........................
Guaranteed ....................................................................................................................................... (500,000) (500,000) (500,000) .......................... ..........................
Total, Loan authorizations ............................................................................................................................. 3,300,000 3,300,000 3,300,000 .......................... ..........................
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (∂ or ¥)
2021 Budget Committee
Item appropriation estimate recommendation 2021 Budget
appropriation estimate
Loan subsidies and grants:
Community facility:
Non-conforming Subsidy ........................................................................................................................... 25,000 .......................... 25,000 .......................... ∂25,000
Grants ........................................................................................................................................................ 32,000 58,000 48,000 ∂16,000 ¥10,000
Congressionally Directed Spending Requests .................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 83,690 ∂83,690 ∂83,690
Rural community development initiative .................................................................................................. 6,000 6,000 6,000 .......................... ..........................
Economic impact initiative grants ............................................................................................................ 6,000 .......................... .......................... ¥6,000 ..........................
Tribal college grants ................................................................................................................................. 5,000 10,000 10,000 ∂5,000 ..........................
Subtotal, Loan subsidies and grants ............................................................................................................ 74,000 74,000 172,690 ∂98,690 ∂98,690 158
Total, grants and payments ................................................................................................................................... 150,000 151,000 249,690 ∂99,690 ∂98,690
Total, Rural Housing Service .................................................................................................................................. 2,120,274 2,135,306 2,233,995 ∂113,721 ∂98,689
(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................................ (28,646,000) (35,146,000) (34,968,000) (∂6,322,000) (¥178,000)
Rural Business—Cooperative Service
Rural Business Program Account:
(Guaranteed business and industry loan authorization) ............................................................................................ (1,000,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (∂500,000) ..........................
Loan subsidies and grants:
Guaranteed business and industry subsidy ...................................................................................................... 10,400 30,150 30,150 ∂19,750 ..........................
Rural business development grants .................................................................................................................. 37,000 37,000 37,000 .......................... ..........................
Delta Regional Authority and Appalachian Regional Commission .................................................................... 9,000 9,000 9,000 .......................... ..........................
Rural Innovation Stronger Economy Grant Program .......................................................................................... .......................... 5,000 5,000 ∂5,000 ..........................
Total, RBP loan subsidies and grants ................................................................................................................... 56,400 81,150 81,150 ∂24,750 ..........................
Intermediary Relending Program Fund Account:
(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................................................... (18,889) (18,889) (18,889) .......................... ..........................
Loan subsidy ...................................................................................................................................................... 2,939 1,524 1,524 ¥1,415 ..........................
Administrative expenses ..................................................................................................................................... 4,468 4,468 4,468 .......................... ..........................
(transfer out to Rural Development) .................................................................................................................. (¥4,468) (¥4,468) (¥4,468) .......................... ..........................
Total, Intermediary Relending Program Account ........................................................................................... 7,407 5,992 5,992 ¥1,415 ..........................
Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account:
(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................................................... (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) .......................... ..........................
Limit cushion of credit interest spending ......................................................................................................... (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) .......................... ..........................
Rural Cooperative Development Grants:
Cooperative development ................................................................................................................................... 5,800 2,800 5,800 .......................... ∂3,000
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas .............................................................................................. 2,800 2,800 3,000 ∂200 ∂200
Grants to assist minority producers .................................................................................................................. 3,000 3,000 3,000 .......................... ..........................
Value-added agricultural product market development .................................................................................... 12,000 15,000 12,000 .......................... ¥3,000
Agriculture innovation centers ........................................................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 .......................... ..........................
Total, Rural Cooperative development grants ............................................................................................... 26,600 26,600 26,800 ∂200 ∂200 159
Healthy Food Financing Initiative ............................................................................................................................... .......................... 5,000 6,000 ∂6,000 ∂1,000
Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program:
Loan authorization .............................................................................................................................................. .......................... (150,000) (150,000) (∂150,000) ..........................
Loan subsidies and grants ................................................................................................................................ 6,000 6,000 6,000 .......................... ..........................
Rural Energy for America Program:
(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................................................... (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) .......................... ..........................
Loan subsidy and grants ................................................................................................................................... 392 30,168 22,168 ∂21,776 ¥8,000
Total, Rural Business–Cooperative Service ................................................................................................... 96,799 154,910 148,110 ∂51,311 ¥6,800
(Loan authorizations) ..................................................................................................................................... (1,088,889) (1,738,889) (1,738,889) (∂650,000) ..........................
Rural Utilities Service:
Rural water and waste disposal program account:
Loan authorizations:
Direct ......................................................................................................................................................... (1,400,000) (1,400,000) (1,400,000) .......................... ..........................
Guaranteed ................................................................................................................................................ (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) .......................... ..........................
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (∂ or ¥)
2021 Budget Committee
Item appropriation estimate recommendation 2021 Budget
appropriation estimate
Total, Loan authorizations .................................................................................................................... 1,450,000 1,450,000 1,450,000 .......................... ..........................
Loan subsidies and grants:
Guaranteed subsidy ............................................................................................................................................ 60 45 45 ¥15 ..........................
Water and waste revolving fund ........................................................................................................................ 1,000 1,000 1,000 .......................... ..........................
Water well system grants .................................................................................................................................. 5,000 5,000 5,000 .......................... ..........................
Colonias and AK/HI grants ................................................................................................................................. 68,000 93,000 73,000 ∂5,000 ¥20,000
Water and waste technical assistance .............................................................................................................. 35,000 40,000 37,500 ∂2,500 ¥2,500
Circuit rider program ......................................................................................................................................... 20,157 20,157 20,157 .......................... ..........................
Solid waste management grants ....................................................................................................................... 4,000 4,000 4,000 .......................... ..........................
160
High energy cost grants ..................................................................................................................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 .......................... ..........................
Water and waste disposal grants ...................................................................................................................... 463,350 528,355 500,000 ∂36,650 ¥28,355
306A(i)(2) grants ................................................................................................................................................ 15,000 15,000 15,000 .......................... ..........................
Total, Loan subsidies and grants ................................................................................................................. 621,567 716,557 665,702 ∂44,135 ¥50,855
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account:
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, FFB .......................................................................................................................................................... (5,500,000) .......................... .......................... (¥5,500,000) ..........................
Electric Direct, Treasury Rate ............................................................................................................................ .......................... (6,500,000) (6,500,000) (∂6,500,000) ..........................
Guaranteed underwriting .................................................................................................................................... (750,000) .......................... (750,000) .......................... (∂750,000)
Rural Energy Savings Program .......................................................................................................................... .......................... (398,551) (208,333) (∂208,333) (¥190,218)
Subtotal, Electric ........................................................................................................................................... 6,250,000 6,898,551 7,458,333 ∂1,208,333 ∂559,782
Telecommunications:
Telecomm Direct, Treasury ................................................................................................................................. (345,000) (690,000) (690,000) (∂345,000) ..........................
Direct, FFB .......................................................................................................................................................... (345,000) .......................... .......................... (¥345,000) ..........................
Subtotal, Telecommunications ....................................................................................................................... 690,000 690,000 690,000 .......................... ..........................
Total, Loan authorizations ............................................................................................................................. 6,940,000 7,588,551 8,148,333 ∂1,208,333 ∂559,782
Loan Subsidy:
Rural electric modifications ........................................................................................................................................ .......................... 400,000 .......................... .......................... ¥400,000
Rural Energy Savings Program ................................................................................................................................... .......................... 22,000 11,500 ∂11,500 ¥10,500
Telecommunications Direct, Treasury Rate ................................................................................................................. 2,277 2,070 2,070 ¥207 ..........................
Treasury modifications ................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 25,000 .......................... .......................... ¥25,000
RETLP administrative expenses .................................................................................................................................. 33,270 33,270 33,270 .......................... ..........................
(transfer out to Rural Development) .................................................................................................................. (¥33,270) (¥33,270) (¥33,270) .......................... ..........................
Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account ......................................................... 35,547 482,340 46,840 ∂11,293 ¥435,500
(Loan authorization) .................................................................................................................................................... (6,940,000) (7,588,551) (8,148,333) (∂1,208,333) (∂559,782)
Broadband Program:
Loan authorizations: 161
Broadband telecommunications ................................................................................................................ (11,869) (11,869) .......................... (¥11,869) (¥11,869)
Loan subsidies and grants:
Distance learning and telemedicine:
Grants ............................................................................................................................................... 60,000 60,000 60,000 .......................... ..........................
Congressionally Directed Spending Requests .................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 2,510 ∂2,510 ∂2,510
Broadband telecommunications:
Direct ................................................................................................................................................ 2,000 1,772 2,272 ∂272 ∂500
Grants ............................................................................................................................................... 35,000 35,000 37,500 ∂2,500 ∂2,500
Broadband E–Connect:
Loan subsidies and grants .............................................................................................................. .......................... 650,000 .......................... .......................... ¥650,000
Total, Loan subsidies and grants ............................................................................................................................... 97,000 746,772 102,282 ∂5,282 ¥644,490
Total, Rural Utilities Service ....................................................................................................................................... 754,114 1,945,669 814,824 ∂60,710 ¥1,130,845
(Loan authorization) .................................................................................................................................................... (8,401,869) (9,050,420) (9,598,333) (∂1,196,464) (∂547,913)
Total, title III, Rural Development Programs .............................................................................................................. 3,236,023 4,604,662 3,562,431 ∂326,408 ¥1,042,231
(By transfer) ....................................................................................................................................................... (449,992) (449,992) (449,992) .......................... ..........................
(Transfer out) ..................................................................................................................................................... (¥449,992) (¥449,992) (¥449,992) .......................... ..........................
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (∂ or ¥)
2021 Budget Committee
Item appropriation estimate recommendation 2021 Budget
appropriation estimate
(Loan authorizations) ......................................................................................................................................... (38,136,758) (45,935,309) (46,305,222) (∂8,168,464) (∂369,913)
TITLE IV—DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services ........................................................................ 809 1,327 1,327 ∂518 ..........................
Food and Nutrition Service:
Child nutrition programs ............................................................................................................................................. 25,046,440 26,800,922 26,790,922 ∂1,744,482 ¥10,000
School breakfast program equipment grants ............................................................................................................. 30,000 35,000 35,000 ∂5,000 ..........................
Demonstration projects (Summer EBT) ....................................................................................................................... 42,000 45,000 45,000 ∂3,000 ..........................
School Breakfast Expansion Grants ............................................................................................................................ .......................... 6,000 6,000 ∂6,000 ..........................
162
Farm to School ............................................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................
Child Nutrition Training .............................................................................................................................................. .......................... 1,000 2,000 ∂2,000 ∂1,000
Total, Child nutrition programs .............................................................................................................................. 25,118,440 26,887,922 26,878,922 ∂1,760,482 ¥9,000
Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC) ................................................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,278,000 ∂278,000 ∂278,000
Supplemental nutrition assistance program:
(Food stamp program) ....................................................................................................................................... 111,034,580 102,792,199 102,828,349 ¥8,206,231 ∂36,150
Reserve ...................................................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 .......................... ..........................
FDPIR nutrition education services ........................................................................................................... 998 998 998 .......................... ..........................
Forward funding ........................................................................................................................................ .......................... 17,805,255 .......................... .......................... ¥17,805,255
Healthy Fluid Milk ..................................................................................................................................... .......................... 1,000 .......................... .......................... ¥1,000
Tribal Demonstration Projects ................................................................................................................... .......................... 3,000 .......................... .......................... ¥3,000
Total, Food stamp program .................................................................................................................. 114,035,578 123,602,452 105,829,347 ¥8,206,231 ¥17,773,105
Commodity assistance program:
Commodity supplemental food program ............................................................................................................ 325,000 332,000 332,000 ∂7,000 ..........................
Farmers market nutrition program .................................................................................................................... 21,000 24,000 24,000 ∂3,000 ..........................
Emergency food assistance program ................................................................................................................. 79,630 85,000 90,000 ∂10,370 ∂5,000
Pacific island and disaster assistance ............................................................................................................. 1,070 1,070 1,070 .......................... ..........................
Total, Commodity assistance program .......................................................................................................... 426,700 442,070 447,070 ∂20,370 ∂5,000
Nutrition programs administration ............................................................................................................................. 156,805 191,533 178,233 ∂21,428 ¥13,300
Congressional Hunger Center ............................................................................................................................. (2,000) (2,000) .......................... (¥2,000) (¥2,000)
Total, Food and Nutrition Service ........................................................................................................................... 145,737,523 157,123,977 139,611,572 ¥6,125,951 ¥17,512,405
Total, title IV, Domestic Food Programs ................................................................................................................. 145,738,332 157,125,304 139,612,899 ¥6,125,433 ¥17,512,405
TITLE V—FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs .......................................................................... 887 1,408 1,408 ∂521 ..........................
Office of Codex Alimentarius ............................................................................................................................................... 4,805 4,841 4,841 ∂36 ..........................
Foreign Agricultural Service
163
Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 221,835 228,644 229,644 ∂7,809 ∂1,000
(By transfer from export loans) .................................................................................................................................. (6,063) (6,063) (6,063) .......................... ..........................
Total, Salaries and expenses (including transfers) ............................................................................................... 227,898 234,707 235,707 ∂7,809 ∂1,000
Food for Peace Title I Direct Credit and Food for Progress Program Account:
Administrative expenses .............................................................................................................................................. 112 .......................... .......................... ¥112 ..........................
FPAC Business Center Salaries and expenses (transfer out) .................................................................................... (¥112) .......................... .......................... (∂112) ..........................
Food for Peace Title II Grants:
Expenses ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,740,000 1,570,000 1,760,000 ∂20,000 ∂190,000
Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account:
Administrative expenses .............................................................................................................................................. 6,381 6,063 6,063 ¥318 ..........................
Foreign Agriculture Service, Salaries and expenses (transfer out) ................................................................... (¥6,063) (¥6,063) (¥6,063) .......................... ..........................
FPAC Business Center Salaries and expenses (transfer out) ........................................................................... (¥318) .......................... .......................... (∂318) ..........................
Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account ................................................................................................... 6,381 6,063 6,063 ¥318 ..........................
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (∂ or ¥)
2021 Budget Committee
Item appropriation estimate recommendation 2021 Budget
appropriation estimate
McGovern–Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition program grants ..................................................... 230,000 230,112 245,000 ∂15,000 ∂14,888
Total, title V, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs .......................................................................................... 2,204,020 2,041,068 2,246,956 ∂42,936 ∂205,888
(By transfer) ....................................................................................................................................................... (6,063) (6,063) (6,063) .......................... ..........................
(Transfer out) ..................................................................................................................................................... (¥6,493) (¥6,063) (¥6,063) (∂430) ..........................
TITLE VI—RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration 164
Salaries and expenses:
Direct appropriation .................................................................................................................................................... 3,201,928 3,526,928 3,399,428 ∂197,500 ¥127,500
Transfer to OIG (transfer out) ..................................................................................................................................... (¥1,500) (¥1,500) (¥1,500) .......................... ..........................
Spending from appropriated user fees:
Prescription drug user fees ......................................................................................................................................... 1,107,199 1,141,861 1,141,861 ∂34,662 ..........................
Medical device user fees ............................................................................................................................................ 236,059 241,431 241,431 ∂5,372 ..........................
Human generic drug user fees ................................................................................................................................... 520,208 527,848 527,848 ∂7,640 ..........................
Biosimilar biological products user fees .................................................................................................................... 42,494 43,116 43,116 ∂622 ..........................
Animal drug user fees ................................................................................................................................................ 33,340 33,836 33,836 ∂496 ..........................
Animal generic drug user fees ................................................................................................................................... 22,797 23,137 23,137 ∂340 ..........................
Tobacco product user fees .......................................................................................................................................... 712,000 712,000 712,000 .......................... ..........................
Subtotal, user fees (appropriated) ......................................................................................................................... 2,674,097 2,723,229 2,723,229 ∂49,132 ..........................
Subtotal (including appropriated user fees) .......................................................................................................... 5,876,025 6,250,157 6,122,657 ∂246,632 ¥127,500
Mammography user fees ............................................................................................................................................. 18,618 18,991 18,991 ∂373 ..........................
Export user fees .......................................................................................................................................................... 4,886 4,983 4,983 ∂97 ..........................
Color certification user fees ........................................................................................................................................ 10,469 10,678 10,678 ∂209 ..........................
Food and Feed Recall user fees ................................................................................................................................. 1,492 1,522 1,522 ∂30 ..........................
Food Reinspection fees ............................................................................................................................................... 6,673 6,805 6,805 ∂132 ..........................
Voluntary qualified importer program fees ................................................................................................................. 5,514 5,624 5,624 ∂110 ..........................
Pharmacy compounding fees ...................................................................................................................................... 1,581 1,613 1,613 ∂32 ..........................
Priority review vouchers (PRV) pediatric disease ....................................................................................................... 7,997 8,156 8,156 ∂159 ..........................
Priority review vouchers (PRV) tropical disease ......................................................................................................... 2,556 2,608 2,608 ∂52 ..........................
Priority review vouchers (PRV) medical countermeasures .......................................................................................... 2,556 2,608 2,608 ∂52 ..........................
Third party auditor ...................................................................................................................................................... 741 755 755 ∂14 ..........................
Over-the-Counter Monograph fees .............................................................................................................................. 28,400 28,968 28,968 ∂568 ..........................
Increased export certification fees (legislative proposal) .......................................................................................... .......................... 4,366 .......................... .......................... ¥4,366
Expand tobacco products fees (legislative proposal) ................................................................................................. .......................... 100,000 .......................... .......................... ¥100,000
Subtotal, spending from FDA user fees ................................................................................................................. 2,765,580 2,920,906 2,816,540 ∂50,960 ¥104,366
Total, Salaries and expenses (including user fees) ............................................................................................... 5,966,008 6,446,334 6,214,468 ∂248,460 ¥231,866
HHS Office of Inspector General (by transfer) ..................................................................................................................... (1,500) (1,500) (1,500) .......................... ..........................
Buildings and facilities ........................................................................................................................................................ 12,788 30,788 15,288 ∂2,500 ¥15,500
FDA Innovation account ....................................................................................................................................................... 70,000 50,000 50,000 ¥20,000 .......................... 165
Offset of appropriation pursuant to Section 1002 (b)(3)(B) of the 21st Century Cures Act (PL 114–255) ..................... ¥70,000 ¥50,000 ¥50,000 ∂20,000 ..........................
Spending of FDA innovation account (transfer) .................................................................................................................. (70,000) (50,000) (50,000) (¥20,000) ..........................
Total, FDA (w/user fees, including proposals) ............................................................................................................ 5,980,296 6,478,622 6,231,256 ∂250,960 ¥247,366
Total, FDA (w/enacted user fees only) ........................................................................................................................ 5,980,296 6,374,256 6,231,256 ∂250,960 ¥143,000
FDA user fees ....................................................................................................................................................................... ¥2,765,580 ¥2,920,906 ¥2,816,540 ¥50,960 ∂104,366
Total, Food and Drug Administration (excluding user fees) ...................................................................................... 3,214,716 3,557,716 3,414,716 ∂200,000 ¥143,000
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading Commission 1 .......................................................................................................................... 304,000 278,000 .......................... ¥304,000 ¥278,000
CFTC fees (legislative proposal) .......................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................
Total, Commodity Futures Trading Commission ......................................................................................................... 304,000 278,000 .......................... ¥304,000 ¥278,000
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (∂ or ¥)
2021 Budget Committee
Item appropriation estimate recommendation 2021 Budget
appropriation estimate
Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative expenses) ................................................................................. (80,400) (84,200) (84,200) (∂3,800) ..........................
Total, title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration ........................................................................ 3,518,716 3,835,716 3,414,716 ¥104,000 ¥421,000
TITLE VII—GENERAL PROVISIONS
Rural Energy Savings Program ............................................................................................................................................ 11,000 .......................... .......................... ¥11,000 ..........................
Farm to School ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12,000 12,000 17,000 ∂5,000 ∂5,000
Healthy Food Financing Initiative ........................................................................................................................................ 5,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 ..........................
Citrus Greening .................................................................................................................................................................... 8,500 .......................... .......................... ¥8,500 ..........................
Broadband Pilot .................................................................................................................................................................... 531,000 .......................... 650,000 ∂119,000 ∂650,000
166
Section 313 funds ....................................................................................................................................................... (104,000) (50,000) (50,000) (¥54,000) ..........................
NIFA Military Veteran Grants ................................................................................................................................................ 5,000 .......................... 5,000 .......................... ∂5,000
Centers of Excellence ........................................................................................................................................................... 10,000 .......................... .......................... ¥10,000 ..........................
Rural Hospital Technical Assistance ................................................................................................................................... 2,000 .......................... .......................... ¥2,000 ..........................
Protecting Animals with Shelter Grants .............................................................................................................................. 2,500 .......................... .......................... ¥2,500 ..........................
Tribal Demonstration Projects .............................................................................................................................................. 3,000 .......................... 3,000 .......................... ∂3,000
International Agricultural Education Fellowship .................................................................................................................. 1,000 .......................... .......................... ¥1,000 ..........................
School Breakfast Expansion Grants ..................................................................................................................................... 6,000 .......................... .......................... ¥6,000 ..........................
Urban Agriculture Office ...................................................................................................................................................... 7,000 .......................... .......................... ¥7,000 ..........................
Food Loss Liaison ................................................................................................................................................................. 500 .......................... .......................... ¥500 ..........................
Healthy Fluid Milk ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,000 .......................... 3,000 ∂2,000 ∂3,000
Pollinator Research Coordinator ........................................................................................................................................... 400 .......................... 400 .......................... ∂400
Farm Opportunities Training and Outreach ......................................................................................................................... 5,000 .......................... 5,000 .......................... ∂5,000
Tribal Student Scholarships ................................................................................................................................................. 5,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 ..........................
Genome to Phenome ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,000 .......................... .......................... ¥1,000 ..........................
Micro-grants for Food Security ............................................................................................................................................. 5,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 ..........................
Water Bank program ............................................................................................................................................................ 4,000 .......................... 4,000 .......................... ∂4,000
Geographic Disadvantaged farmers ..................................................................................................................................... 2,000 .......................... .......................... ¥2,000 ..........................
Maturing mortgage pilot ...................................................................................................................................................... 2,000 .......................... 2,000 .......................... ∂2,000
WIC (rescission) .................................................................................................................................................................... ¥1,250,000 .......................... ¥514,660 ∂735,340 ¥514,660
Dairy innovation ................................................................................................................................................................... 22,000 .......................... .......................... ¥22,000 ..........................
RISE grants .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 ..........................
Mitigation banking ............................................................................................................................................................... 5,000 .......................... 5,000 .......................... ∂5,000
Waste water pilot program .................................................................................................................................................. 5,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 ..........................
Agriculture Business Innovation Center ............................................................................................................................... 2,000 .......................... .......................... ¥2,000 ..........................
Child nutrition training ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,000 .......................... .......................... ¥1,000 ..........................
Renewable energy ................................................................................................................................................................. 10,000 .......................... .......................... ¥10,000 ..........................
NOAA working group ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,000 .......................... 1,000 .......................... ∂1,000
Goodfellow facility ................................................................................................................................................................ 45,861 .......................... 24,525 ¥21,336 ∂24,525
Broadband program (rescission) .......................................................................................................................................... ¥12,000 .......................... .......................... ∂12,000 ..........................
WI Germplasm Facility ......................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 39,700 ∂39,700 ∂39,700
Institute for Rural Partnership ............................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 30,000 ∂30,000 ∂30,000
VT Institute for Rural Partnership ....................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 10,000 ∂10,000 ∂10,000
FDA Seafood Safety .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,000 .......................... .......................... ¥1,000 ..........................
Cogongrass Pilot .................................................................................................................................................................. 3,000 .......................... 3,000 .......................... ∂3,000
Blue Ribbon Panel ................................................................................................................................................................ 300 .......................... .......................... ¥300 ..........................
Farm of the Future ............................................................................................................................................................... 4,000 .......................... .......................... ¥4,000 ..........................
Livestock Library ................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 167
Open Data Standards ........................................................................................................................................................... 500 .......................... .......................... ¥500 ..........................
Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Services (emergency) .................................................................................................... 635,000 .......................... .......................... ¥635,000 ..........................
Crop Insurance Requirements .............................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 15,000 ∂15,000 ∂15,000
Southwest Regional Border Commission ............................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000
Disaster Assistance .............................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 7,030,000 ∂7,030,000 ∂7,030,000
Total, title VII, General Provisions .............................................................................................................................. 108,561 12,000 7,334,965 ∂7,226,404 ∂7,322,965
Grand total ........................................................................................................................................................................... 205,769,113 214,812,272 203,085,781 ¥2,683,332 ¥11,726,491
Appropriations ............................................................................................................................................................. (209,161,693) (217,733,178) (199,332,281) (¥9,829,412) (¥18,400,897)
Emergency appropriations ........................................................................................................................................... (635,000) .......................... (7,045,000) (∂6,410,000) (∂7,045,000)
Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. (¥2,765,580) (¥2,920,906) (¥2,816,540) (¥50,960) (∂104,366)
Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................................. (¥1,262,000) .......................... (¥474,960) (∂787,040) (¥474,960)
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (∂ or ¥)
2021 Budget Committee
Item appropriation estimate recommendation 2021 Budget
appropriation estimate
(By transfer) ......................................................................................................................................................................... (1,623,154) (1,622,294) (1,622,294) (¥860) ..........................
(By transfer) (emergency) .................................................................................................................................................... (104,000) (50,000) (50,000) (¥54,000) ..........................
(Transfer out) ....................................................................................................................................................................... (¥1,623,154) (¥1,622,294) (¥1,622,294) (∂860) ..........................
(Loan authorization) ............................................................................................................................................................. (47,994,934) (56,293,485) (56,691,130) (∂8,696,196) (∂397,645)
(Limitation on administrative expenses) ............................................................................................................................. (211,627) (215,986) (215,986) (∂4,359) ..........................
1 Funding for CFTC is included here for comparability. Actual fiscal year 2021 appropriation was provided in the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act.
Æ
168
File and source
- File
- CRPT_crpt-117srpt34_crpt-117srpt34.pdf
- Size
- 964,411 bytes
- SHA-256
- 85b85bb0e29afc387e0d442f09046c5c2c7adf8cd4ffcfb0e163469a3c568b53
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov